RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

[FakeShady]

to the Turk

I just think you're way too awesome for calling Medieval Europe backwards. I mean really... wow.
Byzantine Greek fire. BACKWARDS. LAWLLL.

DUDE YOU'RE AWESOME
Moderator Action: Don't troll other people.
Note: Responding to trolling posts is also seen as trolling and will get infracted.

 

[FakeShady]

Hmm... i see i've been warned for being "troll"

But honestly i cant care less now. I have long ago quit civ 4 due to:

1) civ 5 being actually a very good game
2) Ottoman Turks being way too ridiculously strong in RFC:Europe
3) my life is getting more exciting by the day

the only reason i'm still checking out this thread is because there are just so many HILARIOUS posts (some of them mine!) that makes me wanna go "WOW!! HOW CAN ANYONE BE SOOO AWESOME?!" But you guys probably wont hear from me again if nothing awesome pops up. Unless of cos you all switch over to civ 5 too. I appreciate the effort put into this mod, really. To all the modders, great job, keep it up

To the Turk, i've watched you grow from a cheiftain (or is it warlord?) to an emperor trying to change RFC and RFC:E into an SOI. Though our views may have extreme differences, i am honestly impressed by your never-say-die attitude. Though we have ridiculed each other before, i actually felt bad about teasing you... sometimes I remembered there was once you asked me about my country as you were doing a study about Singapore, and i was actually very touched that someone is actually asking me about my country. I tease hard, but we never should have insulted each other. For that i apologize. So... Ciao (thats a backward European way of saying goodbye. Okay not funny but i couldnt resist heh)

 

[Brew]

People are really touchy about "backwards" Medieval Europe huh? Well, this is this last I'll say about it; it is a historical fact that Medieval Europe (again, other than Byzantium) was culturally and technologically inferior to the Roman civilization which preceded it. This is not the definition of moving forwards, but rather describes a civilization that has gone backwards.

 

[Leoreth]

I think the reason why some people get touchy about these statements is not because they want to deny them in their entirety, but the associations that belong to them.

The statement "Europe was socially/technologically backwards compared to Rome or contemporary Arabia/China" really can't be challenged. The thing is, though, that the Renaissance thinkers took this fact and basically propagated it to absolute extremes. And it's true that we still cling to that picture of medieval Europe as a "dark age": unwashed peasants that don't even know simple everyday things, an all-oppressive Catholic church that only tried to burn everyone they could get their hands on etc. For example, the movie adaptation of Ken Follett's "The Pillars of Earth" made it into German TV last month, and it's a good case study of this. The protagonist's father wasn't simply hanged as in the book, he had to be burned at the stake. And the antagonist, a bishop, had to have scenes with mortification of the flesh, a rather ahistorical practice for an 11th century priest. This is all to cater to the public image of the Middle Ages, and it's easy to fall for this train of thought as well, which is why I can understand civ_king's undeniably harsh reaction.

 

[The Turk]

Ok Guys,

Seriously! I did NOT intend my post, saying that "Medieval Europe was technologically backwards compared to other parts of the world", to spark off all this controversy. For those who don't accept this, PLEASE be my guest and read "A World Lit Only By Fire", or in fact, just read the wikipedia page for Medieval Europe; SERIOUSLY! Now, for the sake of giving the Moderators a break, I suggest we get back on topic of this thread.

What I was suggesting, before Kochman rudely interrupted me, was that techs from the "Dark Ages", (since the game starts in 500 AD), should be more expensive, and then gradually become cheaper, as the Renaissance starts.

@FakeShady
Dude, SoI did not exist during the time I played RFC or RFC Europe
And no, I don't disagree with you on most accounts at all; in fact I love Byzantine history a lot, and as for SoI, which I have commented on a lot, I have given Edead numerous suggestions for making the Byzantines more interesting to play as. IN FACT, if you love Byzantine history so much, I would suggest you download his mod, and play as the Byzantines, as it's a very comprehensive game.

 

[yogiebere]

I'm not sure why you care if you said that or not. I would say that it was indeed scientifically backward. Most scientific advances of the time were being made in Arabia or China, things that built off of Greek and Roman science (for Arabia) like developing machinery, astrology and other things.

In china they developed paper and gunpowder before Europe and things were brought via Silk Road. The reason Europe became powerful between 1200 and 1600 was their ability to conquer people! They conquered parts of Arabia, taking home their ideas and classical theory and starting their own scientific advances.
Europe was militarily powerful due to feudalism (although it was very fragmented, but it gave the mentality of military)

 

[civ_king]

Ok Guys,

Seriously! I did NOT intend my post, saying that "Medieval Europe was technologically backwards compared to other parts of the world", to spark off all this controversy. For those who don't accept this, PLEASE be my guest and read "A World Lit Only By Fire", or in fact, just read the wikipedia page for Medieval Europe; SERIOUSLY! Now, for the sake of giving the Moderators a break, I suggest we get back on topic of this thread.

What I was suggesting, before Kochman rudely interrupted me, was that techs from the "Dark Ages", (since the game starts in 500 AD), should be more expensive, and then gradually become cheaper, as the Renaissance starts.

@FakeShady
Dude, SoI did not exist during the time I played RFC or RFC Europe
And no, I don't disagree with you on most accounts at all; in fact I love Byzantine history a lot, and as for SoI, which I have commented on a lot, I have given Edead numerous suggestions for making the Byzantines more interesting to play as. IN FACT, if you love Byzantine history so much, I would suggest you download his mod, and play as the Byzantines, as it's a very comprehensive game.

Been there, done that, regret it. That book was like "The Da Vinci Code" as in requiring a book to detail all the flaws and misconceptions in it. It was such utter trite garbage that it was absolutely appalling. If it wasn't the library's book I would have burned it!

 

[Leoreth]

Ok Guys,

Seriously! I did NOT intend my post, saying that "Medieval Europe was technologically backwards compared to other parts of the world", to spark off all this controversy. For those who don't accept this, PLEASE be my guest and read "A World Lit Only By Fire", or in fact, just read the wikipedia page for Medieval Europe; SERIOUSLY! Now, for the sake of giving the Moderators a break, I suggest we get back on topic of this thread.

Well, just to make that clear, I wasn't stepping in here to attack you, but to support what civ_king named as reasons why the debate became so heated.

But I couldn't resist getting a quick glance at that source you're citing, and that's definitely not a good method to calm down the debate. Let's see what the top three amazon recensions have to say about it:

Known among medievalists merely as "that book," Manchester's "World Lit Only by Fire" vividly tells a compelling story; the only problem is that the story he tells bears little to no resemblance to the realities of medieval Europe. Manchester gets facts wrong (for instance, being a century off in dating Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales"), commits logical fallacies (for instance, comparing the quality of life of medieval peasants to that of Renaissance lords, and concluding that society as a whole became richer), and seems more interested in writing polemic than history.

Manchester states that he's no expert on the period [...] This would be acceptable, of course, if Manchester's "history" wasn't just a rehash of 19th (!) century clichés and stereotypes about the Middle Ages: that is, a Europe composed wholly of mud, blood, sex, torture and ridiculous superstition, utterly worthless and depraved. And although I'm certainly not a fan of the Catholic Church, Manchester's endless cavalcade of largely unsubstantiated potshots at that institution is particularly annoying. If this book was someone's sole source of information on the time period, they'd be excused for thinking that Europe from the fall of Rome to the rediscovery of Classical culture in the Renaissance was pretty much composed of people expiring from sexually transmitted diseases... when they weren't poisoning popes and burning witches, that is.

This is exactly what I was talking about!

You don't even have to read it to see it's the typical Renaissance propaganda of "Rome was great, now it's great again, and everything inbetween was a hellhole". It's a shame someone is allowed to call himself historian when supporting such a mindset in the 21st century.

The reason Europe became powerful between 1200 and 1600 was their ability to conquer people! They conquered parts of Arabia, taking home their ideas and classical theory and starting their own scientific advances.
Europe was militarily powerful due to feudalism (although it was very fragmented, but it gave the mentality of military)

I don't think that's the reason. I won't deny European power came from conquests, but it certainly wasn't against the Arabs (the crusades didn't have much consequences in the greater picture, hell, in 1200-1600 it was rather the Middle East that expanded into Europe, if you take a look at the Ottomans). The European military wasn't that strong anyway - of course, the nobles provided a strong military elite, but that's it. Contemporary Muslim armies were superior in both numbers and organization.

Europe's success is rather the historical coincidence that they happened to be the first to build ships to sail the oceans and decided to explore them. There they had their conquests (Americas), and there they were able to bypass the Arabian world's greatest advantage, the Silk Route.

In the later picture, you could also make a point in that Europe was the only region to develop a sizeable urban middle class, which became hugely important in the capitalist and industrial revolutions which solidified their advantage over the rest of the world.

 

[civ_king]

what should tip you off that the contents is crap is

Another oddity of this book was that it was written, so to speak, inside out. Ordinarily a writer does not begin to put words on paper before he knows much [sic.] he is going to say. (1)

 

[ezzlar]

I feel this feedback thread is getting large. Why not different ones:

- Balance issues
- Historical issues
- Units
- Buildings

etc. I know there are some threads already but we should make greater use of them!

 

[Leoreth]

I'd like to hear before if the development is currently active enough to justify this split.

 

[yogiebere]

I feel this feedback thread is getting large. Why not different ones:

- Balance issues
- Historical issues
- Units
- Buildings

etc. I know there are some threads already but we should make greater use of them!

I agree, it seems people are arguing over historical accuracy to the point that the game is no longer balanced. Let's create several threads

 

[Wessel V1]

It has been tried before and it failed every single time. People just can't find the right location to argue.

 

[ezzlar]

Well of course it has to be four or five stickies!

 

[keli]

Been there, done that, regret it. That book was like "The Da Vinci Code" as in requiring a book to detail all the flaws and misconceptions in it. It was such utter trite garbage that it was absolutely appalling. If it wasn't the library's book I would have burned it!

Burning books is barbarian practice. And IMO it was a nice reading, ofc it is based on ahistorical facts and such but it was still entertaining. Now IMO the Turk is right. I am from Europe still I believe Europe was backward after the collapse of the West Roman Empire compared to the Arabic world. Ofc it changed as the time went by.

 

[3Miro]

Has anyone been able to look at why the Muslim nations show a tech screen on starting the game? Does anyone know, when did this bug happen? The python code points to a place in BtS code, not ours, so this is probably an issue with the XML. I will download the Beta 3, but I am assuming that it works fine and the problem was introduced afterwards.

 

[civ_king]

Burning books is barbarian practice. And IMO it was a nice reading, ofc it is based on ahistorical facts and such but it was still entertaining. Now IMO the Turk is right. I am from Europe still I believe Europe was backward after the collapse of the West Roman Empire compared to the Arabic world. Ofc it changed as the time went by.

To present lies as history is a farce. Too many people will read it and think this is actually what happened, this perpetuates a lie.

Europe was behind until the High Middle Ages. As the Church got a firmer grip on society Europe started catching up. By the start of the Renaissance Europe caught up, by the end of it Europe was ahead. With the Age of Discovery Europe cemented it's place as the leader and industrialization was a victory lap

 

[The Turk]

To present lies as history is a farce. Too many people will read it and think this is actually what happened, this perpetuates a lie.

Europe was behind until the High Middle Ages. As the Church got a firmer grip on society Europe started catching up. By the start of the Renaissance Europe caught up, by the end of it Europe was ahead. With the Age of Discovery Europe cemented it's place as the leader and industrialization was a victory lap

I would say, not until 1700 did Europe catch up to the great Empires of India and China and to the Ottoman Empire, which had begun to decline in 1700. So I wouldn't immediately stamp the fact that Europe was the most advanced nation on earth JUST as the Renaissance began. In fact it was not until 1800 that Europe began to make advances on India and China as a whole.

As for William Manchesters book, I do know that it is controversial, but to say that it is "lies", is a bit extreme; especially considering the fact that he is a renowned Medieval Historian in his own right and cannot be branded as a "lier". Sure he began writing the book very sporadically, and sure he gave some of his theories as fact, but I am talking about the "BIG PICTURE" here, not the individual stories he is telling, which are interesting. He does paint a good picture of Medieval Europe, and you cannot say that he is wrong in saying that fundamentally, "Europe was behind", which was ALL I was trying to say, nothing more, nothing less.

So let us all MOVE on, and talk about how better to balance this mod, which currently has its own fair share of problems. So far no one has commented on my "Dark Age tech" idea.

 

[keli]

To present lies as history is a farce. Too many people will read it and think this is actually what happened, this perpetuates a lie.

Europe was behind until the High Middle Ages. As the Church got a firmer grip on society Europe started catching up. By the start of the Renaissance Europe caught up, by the end of it Europe was ahead. With the Age of Discovery Europe cemented it's place as the leader and industrialization was a victory lap

Free speech allows everybody to write what he/she wants and if people want to read it and believe it just do it. It is their stupidity if they believe in something which is a simple fabrication of a mind just like the Holy Bible.
And IMO the "firmer grip" of the church helped at the beginning of the middle ages to create a more normal enviroment. The separation of the church and society which helped to advance even more (enlightment, secularization,industrialization...).

And unfortunately I don't see this development going, so I don't know why we should start speaking about tweaks, ideas, balancing.

 

[civ_king]

I would say, not until 1700 did Europe catch up to the great Empires of India and China and to the Ottoman Empire, which had begun to decline in 1700. So I wouldn't immediately stamp the fact that Europe was the most advanced nation on earth JUST as the Renaissance began. In fact it was not until 1800 that Europe began to make advances on India and China as a whole.

As for William Manchesters book, I do know that it is controversial, but to say that it is "lies", is a bit extreme; especially considering the fact that he is a renowned Medieval Historian in his own right and cannot be branded as a "lier". Sure he began writing the book very sporadically, and sure he gave some of his theories as fact, but I am talking about the "BIG PICTURE" here, not the individual stories he is telling, which are interesting. He does paint a good picture of Medieval Europe, and you cannot say that he is wrong in saying that fundamentally, "Europe was behind", which was ALL I was trying to say, nothing more, nothing less.

So let us all MOVE on, and talk about how better to balance this mod, which currently has its own fair share of problems. So far no one has commented on my "Dark Age tech" idea.

The man uses things from Victorian times to rest his arguments on, but the Victorian historians have been discredited because their histories rely on fabricated evidence designed to make the Middle Ages look bad. His ideas are far from what modern histories have evidence of.

He tries to claim that medieval Europe believed the Earth was flat and yet we have surviving documents from the 9th century that talks about the sphericity of the Earth rather casually as if it were common knowledge. If you want to read about the invention of the flat Earth go read "Inventing the Flat Earth: Columbus and Modern Historians" by Jeffrey Russell which actually uses these damned things called facts.

The reason you come of as so anti-European is that your understanding of the Middle Ages is derived from pseudohistory!

Free speech allows everybody to write what he/she wants and if people want to read it and believe it just do it. It is their stupidity if they believe in something which is a simple fabrication of a mind just like the Holy Bible.
And IMO the "firmer grip" of the church helped only at the beginning of the middle ages. It is the separation of the church and society which helped to advance even more (enlightment, secularization,industrialization...)

And unfortunately I don't see this development going, so I don't know why we should start speaking about tweaks, ideas, balancing.

The Bible is a religious book, it doesn't claim to be a documentation of five hundred years of history. Your argument can be used to justify everything from genocide to abortion to Stalinism to Fahrenheit 451 to male chauvinism and beyond!