RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

[keli]

They can write books about the things you mentioned but commiting them is a crime against humanity. Writing about something and doing something is two different things.
Should we ban the Mein Kampf from the shops(they are only in second-hand shops nowaday)? I guess not. It is a reminder of a horrible inhuman past which should never happen again. If you can understand how and why it happened, you can more easily forego and stop these events.
Oh and IMO abortion is not like the others you mentioned.

 

[civ_king]

They can write books about the things you mentioned but commiting them is a crime against humanity. Writing about something and doing something is two different things.
Should we ban the Mein Kampf from the shops(they are only in second-hand shops nowaday)? I guess not. It is a reminder of a horrible inhuman past which should never happen again. If you can understand how and why it happened, you can more easily forego and stop these events.
Oh and IMO abortion is not like the others you mentioned.

Are you okay with historical revisionism? Suppose I wrote a best selling book about how the Holocaust never happened, and suppose they deleted the Holocaust from history books, is that fine? Between 1860 and 1870 three men managed to change the history books into claiming that during the Middle Ages people believed the world was flat so it isn't a baseless hypothetical.

(I just randomly tossed abortion in there, it is only the killing of human life, and I'm using the proper definitions of those words)

 

[civ-addicted]

Finally! Godwin's Law!

 

[Leoreth]

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. [...] 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.

Of course Manchester can write what he wants, but citing him as a source warrants to question his authority over this field, and from what I've gathered, there's a lot to question.

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

Citing the "firmer grip" of the Church is also a bold statement in itself. If any at all, it was the feudal monarchs who were able to tighten their grip and create a central authority, especially those who would later prove to be successful in the Renaissance (France, England, Portugal, Spain, Austria). On the other hand, in the HRE, where the church successfully attempted to limit the power of the emperor, it got a firmer grip and weakened its central authority, and its power declined.

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.

Agreed here, although the latter sentence is already arguable. 1700 is a good broad break-even point.

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.

Manchester is not a renowned Medievalist. He himself admits as much, and medievalists cringe when they hear of that book. He's a Renaissance historian, and it shows.

And again, we're NOT arguing your claim that Medieval Europe was behind its contemporaries. We're only denying this supposed "bigger picture" Manchester and you seem to adhere to, which is factually wrong.

Edit: can we please stick to the history of Medieval Europe here (which is already borderline OP in this thread's context), and move away from holocaust denial and pro-life argumentations?

 

[Opera]

(which is already borderline OP in this thread's context)

Borderline overpowered?

 

[ezzlar]

Edit: can we please stick to the history of Medieval Europe here (which is already borderline OP in this thread's context), and move away from holocaust denial and pro-life argumentations?

Eh, I think RFC Europe playtesting feedback would be enough!

These arguments are seldom about the game but rather some general discussion about humanity.

 

[AOS9001]

These arguments are seldom about the game but rather some general discussion about humanity.

You should have seen The Turk vs. Everyone Else on strengthening the Ottomans even more so they conquer Constantinople for once.

 

[Wessel V1]

In my opinion the Turk was right on that matter, so to say he was alone on that is a little exaggerated. While I find that sometimes his statements about Arabia and Turkey are a bit too positive, I believe that people who are overreacting are much further from the right direction. I'm no historian so I can't participate in these arguments but I have the feeling that most of these are slightly OT and because people often feel offended they rely too much on thier own truth, in short, the truth is in the middle.

We should feel free to direct each other to the RFCE-OT thread. This topic is already getting way too large for 3Miro and Sedna to see valuable feedback, which generates complaints on things that 'were reported ages ago', and so on. Please, keep it where it belongs.

 

[civ_king]

Of course Manchester can write what he wants, but citing him as a source warrants to question his authority over this field, and from what I've gathered, there's a lot to question.


Citing the "firmer grip" of the Church is also a bold statement in itself. If any at all, it was the feudal monarchs who were able to tighten their grip and create a central authority, especially those who would later prove to be successful in the Renaissance (France, England, Portugal, Spain, Austria). On the other hand, in the HRE, where the church successfully attempted to limit the power of the emperor, it got a firmer grip and weakened its central authority, and its power declined.


Agreed here, although the latter sentence is already arguable. 1700 is a good broad break-even point.


Manchester is not a renowned Medievalist. He himself admits as much, and medievalists cringe when they hear of that book. He's a Renaissance historian, and it shows.

And again, we're NOT arguing your claim that Medieval Europe was behind its contemporaries. We're only denying this supposed "bigger picture" Manchester and you seem to adhere to, which is factually wrong.

Edit: can we please stick to the history of Medieval Europe here (which is already borderline OP in this thread's context), and move away from holocaust denial and pro-life argumentations?

correlation≠causation, but you do bring up an interesting point, it certainly was the feudal monarchs who bound the feuding states together, but what do tell did they bind with?

The HRE certainly had its ups and downs like many massive countries do and Frederick I Barbarossa doth dissent about this "weakening" of the Holy Roman Empire

I do apologize for only talking about Europe and the Middle East, I know India was an economic titan (more so than Europe), not sure about China

EDIT: I apologize Wessel, I half started this post two hours ago and thus didn't see your post

 

[Leoreth]

I concede the HRE was strongest when imperial and papal interests were intersecting, but that became more rare once the Popes started getting ambitious (the Investiture Conflict is the most famous example).

See, I neither want to argue the Church increased its control nor that Europe's situation started to improve in roughly the same period (and interestingly we're exactly down to causation and correlation here) - I'd rather put it in the general picture of European rulers successfully centralizing their authority, bypassing the problems the feudal system created previously. The Papacy was among the rulers that did so, but I don't think it can take all the credit for the resulting stability.

But I'll stop discussing here, though I'll maybe create a thread on Manchester in the WH thread to maybe get a more professional picture of his work. Sorry for the derailment.

 

[AdrienIer]

Yes, Leoreth, stop digressing and work on DoC instead

 

[yogiebere]

Ok I'm rather confused here. It seems there are many people arguing about random history that doesn't exactly pertain to the game. Sure it has to do with Europe, but isn't really involved in gameplay. There still hasn't been a new version of beta in a few months so hopefully we can help those guys out

 

[3Miro]

Yet another setback. I currently have four computers and the only one that is setup for Civilization just broke down ....

I hope to be back in the game by Thursday.

 

[fireclaw722]

Yet another setback. I currently have four computers and the only one that is setup for Civilization just broke down ....

I hope to be back in the game by Thursday.

Shhhh.... You might be able to slip away while they're arguing about history...

 

[ezzlar]

About first strikes: Archers have them. I guess its because they can fire at the enemy while they advance? How come gunpowder infantry units dont have it? They are nearly useless up to Line infantry in this mod.

 

[yogiebere]

About first strikes: Archers have them. I guess its because they can fire at the enemy while they advance? How come gunpowder infantry units dont have it? They are nearly useless up to Line infantry in this mod.

First strikes are yes used to show a unit that's ranged. The really only use it has is that it gives archers a little boost (3 strength ain't much) and that boost can be negated by the ignore first strike ability. Anyway it's kind of odd but it works.

The weakness of gunpowder is kind of the point. Originally gunpowder was very primitive (don't make this a historical thing please) and ineffective. That is shown by the 7 strength arquebuisier or whatever that thing is. Slowly, gunpowder units get better and better until they are equal to nongunpowder and finally much stronger, represent the takeover of gunpowder units. It wasn't until something like the 16th or 17th century that muskets took over. What balances their weakness and lack of abilities is their raw cheapness. Gunpowder units are a cheap easy way to make an army cus you don't really have to train them much (compared to a longbowman or knight).

I guess the reason they don't have first strikes is arbitrary; they didn't in civ4 so they don't now (firaxis came up with first strikes). At the point musketman become decent, there's also grenadiers which are ranged, cannons which are ranged (siege units couldnt do much to infantry before cannons), and mounted units which are ranged. The whole hit the enemy before they hit you thing is no longer is use really, since there are few melee units now and every unit would have first strikes, which just seems kind of pointless then

 

[3Miro]

At the time of Archers, ranged combat was an exception. At the age of Gunpowder, ranged combat is the norm, so both sides are equal.

Read The Three Musketeers", even though they are Musketeers (which comes from muskets), more often then not, they en up fighting using swords. It wasn't until much later that people could reload guns fast enough to compete with the effectiveness of swords and bows.

 

[ezzlar]

Still I think it would make sense to allow Arqebusier and Musketman a 1-first strike to reflect that they operate during the time when melee units were standard. This would make them suck a bit less without sacrificing realism.

But, given the amount of time available there are more important matters to solve.

 

[Etienne]

I hope it's ok if I give feedback here as this topic seems to have gone to another subject.

Bug?: After conquering Constantinople as the Venetians in 1125 I checked to see if it was marked as 1/3 of my UHV already and I saw it was slightly greyed meaning I somehow failed a goal, I'm quite sure the wonders aren't built yet (I'd hope so because an ultimate date of 1500 would be odd if the AI can screw it up before 1125) and for both the other goals I still have timeas they finish in 1200 and 1500.

Feedback: Playing as England I seemed unable to catch up technologically (tried two games, I don't know if that was intended (or possibly that I did something completely wrong, didn't have that problem with Venice though) but it's annoying. Also kinda annoying London wasn't built yet meaning I couldn't build the shrine of Upsala there (don't know if it would be a good idea but it's kinda odd that London, which I'm quite sure was part of the Roman Empire at some point so it must be rather old, can't build thing because it's too new). Also the reformation doesn't seem to work, I was catholic, got a message about the reformation going on somewhere (I didn't know where) and I didn't get a chance to convert (no AIs I knew converted).

 

[AOS9001]

Bug?: After conquering Constantinople as the Venetians in 1125 I checked to see if it was marked as 1/3 of my UHV already and I saw it was slightly greyed meaning I somehow failed a goal, I'm quite sure the wonders aren't built yet (I'd hope so because an ultimate date of 1500 would be odd if the AI can screw it up before 1125) and for both the other goals I still have timeas they finish in 1200 and 1500.

Feedback: Playing as England I seemed unable to catch up technologically (tried two games, I don't know if that was intended (or possibly that I did something completely wrong, didn't have that problem with Venice though) but it's annoying. Also kinda annoying London wasn't built yet meaning I couldn't build the shrine of Upsala there (don't know if it would be a good idea but it's kinda odd that London, which I'm quite sure was part of the Roman Empire at some point so it must be rather old, can't build thing because it's too new). Also the reformation doesn't seem to work, I was catholic, got a message about the reformation going on somewhere (I didn't know where) and I didn't get a chance to convert (no AIs I knew converted).

On these notes, I believe the Venice thing is a bug. I get it too. And the Reformation never works in my games now, that, and the Pope founded Protestantism. It was kind of annoying.