RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

As for cities declaring their independence, I suggest their garrisons being moved or pushed to a city nearby rather than joining the independents.

The way things are strongly discourage creating defenses in cities outside the core area.
 
1, sure
2, this has a gameplay reason, even 1 independent city can represent a whole country or duchy. If the garrison move out then its too easy to recapture it.

City secession is a sign of stability problems (imo i dont like it) a quick retake wont solve the problem. The idea is: fix ur issues then take it back. But every simulation game has its limits and that was the best option so far.
 
Played the 1200 scenario as Spain. Is Islam in Cordoba supposed to be difficult to be removed? Because I had to WB like 40 inquisitors to remove it. Most cities took three inquisitors at most.

Sound about right historically :p

I mean, it *literally* took that many inquisitors to remove it although you can only have three of them at once, even when I had done that in other parts of the Iberian peninsula.
Persecution chance also depends on religious wonders, among many things.
If there were many Islamic wonders in Cordoba, it could have a very low chance.
You are right though, 40 seems way too much in gameplay terms.

EDIT: In my notes I do see that I tweaked those values around once again in my WIP version.
Will be up with the next update.
 
As for cities declaring their independence, I suggest their garrisons being moved or pushed to a city nearby rather than joining the independents.

The way things are strongly discourage creating defenses in cities outside the core area.
Agreed.
I do plan to do some bigger updates on city secessions.
Related to units and culture in the cities, especially.
It will come later though, do not want to touch any additional big mechanics for 1.6.
 
Persecution chance also depends on religious wonders, among many things.
If there were many Islamic wonders in Cordoba, it could have a very low chance.
You are right though, 40 seems way too much in gameplay terms.

EDIT: In my notes I do see that I tweaked those values around once again in my WIP version.
Will be up with the next update.
You could also consider that the persecutor makes a "partial win": he does not entirely remove the religion from the city, but reduces its number of believers in the city. In the game, that could be removing of the factors influencing the persecution chance for the next time. You mentionned religious wonders helped maintaining the religion in place. Maybe the persecutor just detroys that wonder, thus the next persecutor will have an easier job trying to totally remove the religion.

Just a suggestion.


PS: given this thread is old, I am unsure if you still look for testers or not. Please let me know if it is the case? I've only tried Arabia (Vice-Roy) & France (Monarch) so far.
 
I agree the removal of wonders is harsh, but if I understand correctly it is the case today and it is intended so (La Mezquita for example seems to disappear from a city when you remove Islam from it) I was not questionning this, just addressing the non impact of many persecutors in a city.
 
Watermills and Windmills are too weak compared to Farms and Mines, they should yield more commerce.
 
The geography in Ireland is different between the two scenarios. (rivers, lakes, etc)
 
Hello, can someone explain me why I collapse the next turn in this game while my stability is very solid?
This is the first time this ever happened in any of my game, random collapse...
Latest SVN version.
 

Attachments

Hello, can someone explain me why I collapse the next turn in this game while my stability is very solid?
This is the first time this ever happened in any of my game, random collapse...
Latest SVN version.
Thanks for the report and the save, this resulted in important collapse-related fixes and improvements in some old RFCE codes!
In the game you posted, the extra tiles of the core areas were not correctly taken into account for the collapse calculations.
This caused strange stability behaviour in the 1200AD scenario too, e.g. for Sweden.
Anyway, these were already fixed in the previous update.
 
Last edited:
I'm enjoying coming back to the game after the update so far! 2 questions for Cordoba: Why don't they start with Trade Economy? It seems only half the excess :health: contributes to the city growth. Is that intended?
 
2 questions for Cordoba: Why don't they start with Trade Economy? It seems only half the excess :health: contributes to the city growth. Is that intended?
I'm not sure why I chose a different civic back then. It might even be an oversight. Would it be more fitting for them?
Yeah, the health modifier is intentional. I ran quite a few tests on its implementation, and this seemed better for balance.
It's already quite powerful with the current food bonus, especially in the early game, if you manage to trade for a couple more health resources.
Apothecary and Noria also means at least +4 health, so you should build those buildings soon if you want to grow quickly.
 
Last edited:
I just remembered that I brought that up in 2017 and you answered in that post that it was kinda intended. So, nevermind then. :lol:
How on earth did you remember that? :lol:
Anyway, I might be easily convinced about modifying the starting civics... for any civ, really.

Also, my next test game will be with Cordoba. Will check out the health question.
IIRC the UHV became way too easy with 1:1 health to food conversion bonus.
 
Well, there is no reason for the player not to make the switch to Trade Economy on your first turn. That one turn with just one city doesn't waste too much time.
I reached the first Cordoban UHV just fine with the nerfed UP. Teching is a little hard because of very high upkeep but not too problematic.
If you want to look at my game and compare the world to your test: Here is a savegame right at the Aragonian spawn.
 

Attachments

Back
Top Bottom