RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

[3Miro]

@Miro: Hang bug? Think I ran into that a bunch of times,
- all occurrences happened on auto-save turns if I remember correctly.
- reload from previous auto-save 'solves' it.
To me, with no knowledge of anything, it sounds/feels like it has to do with the randomized spawning of resources.

The problem is that the auto-save bug doesn't always disappear upon save/load.

 

[Ogi123]

My intention was not total military overhaul, but rather tweaks. Removing 3 units (axe, longbow, grenadier), adding 2 new units (1 light cav and 1 heavy cav), rest it's mostly slight repositioning units on tech tree and changing their strength value and modifiers. Of course those only propositions not some demands.
Out of curiosty it's really that much work? I ask since my knowledge about programming is on level with my knowledge about orthodox liturgy (very low).

 

[3Miro]

My intention was not total military overhaul, but rather tweaks. Removing 3 units (axe, longbow, grenadier), adding 2 new units (1 light cav and 1 heavy cav), rest it's mostly slight repositioning units on tech tree and changing their strength value and modifiers. Of course those only propositions not some demands.
Out of curiosty it's really that much work? I ask since my knowledge about programming is on level with my knowledge about orthodox liturgy (very low).

The work of changing the Units isn't that much (one afternoon maybe). However, balancing the units afterwards takes a lot of time and a lot of testing. We have to make sure no Unit comes too early or too late, no unit is OP (i.e. every Unit has a counter), no Unit is too cheap or too expensive ... Some Units are closely tied to UHV conditions (like the Bulgarian Konnik and the Kiev Drijina) and so on.

 

[Ogi123]

Ah, well ultimately it's yours decision, I can only provide some feedback and ideas. But in current version there are some problems with units balance. And I think that my proposition was balanced (somewhat), at-least form units counters point.
About something different, does the next beta will have some changes in resource placement for Poland and Lithuania? I gave some examples in previous posts about missing resources (wheat, honey etc.). Oh and polish starting city should be renamed to Gniezno - first national capital city, there also should be some catholic missionaries on start, after all 966 is date of official "baptism of Poland".

 

[3Miro]

Ah, well ultimately it's yours decision, I can only provide some feedback and ideas. But in current version there are some problems with units balance. And I think that my proposition was balanced (somewhat), at-least form units counters point.
About something different, does the next beta will have some changes in resource placement for Poland and Lithuania? I gave some examples in previous posts about missing resources (wheat, honey etc.). Oh and polish starting city should be renamed to Gniezno - first national capital city, there also should be some catholic missionaries on start, after all 966 is date of official "baptism of Poland".

I did a simple move of the prerequisite tech for Longbowman in last Beta and it cause massive problems. England cannot conquer France, Spain cannot take Cordoba, which means no respawn in North Africa. The Ottomans cannot get the Indy cities after Constantinople and the fall of Byzantium and Arabia defends against the Crusades quite easily.

I agree that we should do some tweaking, but I have to put some serious thought into it.

Poland ... Oh wait, you are from Poland! This is awesome. The North-Eastern Europe is the worst region right now. Lithuania was added only a couple of Betas ago and needs massive amounts of work. We need to make changes to all Polish and Lithuanian maps. I am not sure I like the UHV condition either. I am not sure how much I can do for Beta 10 (this needs to come out as soon as possible, we have waited way too long), but Beta 11 will be the Polish Lithuanian beta.

Are you interested in helping with city name maps, terrain maps and some historic research on what appropriate UHV conditions would be. Especially for the UHV conditions, we need two things that the nation managed to achieve and one that they failed (and if they had succeeded then they would have turned the history of the region around).

 

[Ogi123]

Well exams are close, but I think that I can find some time for this. So city names and UHV ok I can do those, although from what I have seen UHV aren't bad in current game.
Resources shouldn't be problem for you just place some wheat (x2-3), honey (x1-2) and cow (x1-2) in core territory, sheep under mountains in Kraków cross, and salt directly S under same city (wieliczka salt mine). As I already said it's more question of balance since those resources were found in all country (wheat, honey, cow).
What about amber, do you plan including it in some release?

 

[3Miro]

Does anyone else have Amber? There is no point in making new resource for one single location (and if we add one resource we have to think how it will affect the balance as we have quite a few resources already).

 

[Veshta]

Several pieces from the early Scandinavian period (500-800) are considered national treasures in Denmark, expect it is the same for all countries with a Baltic coast line. Still a 'favourite' past time to hunt for pieces on the beach for many people looking for alternatives to family outings.

 

[3Miro]

Several pieces from the early Scandinavian period (500-800) are considered national treasures in Denmark, expect it is the same for all countries with a Baltic coast line. Still a 'favourite' past time to hunt for pieces on the beach for many people looking for alternatives to family outings.

Where are the places with Gems on our map. Lithuania and Denmark are the only ones I can think of without looking. If we get amber graphics, then we can easily change the Gems -> Amber (just the name and the graphics, it will have no effect on gameplay).

 

[krieger546]

Does anyone else have Amber? There is no point in making new resource for one single location (and if we add one resource we have to think how it will affect the balance as we have quite a few resources already).

I found the following map:

Spoiler :

 

[Veshta]

Where are the places with Gems on our map. Lithuania and Denmark are the only ones I can think of without looking. If we get amber graphics, then we can easily change the Gems -> Amber (just the name and the graphics, it will have no effect on gameplay).

No gems in Denmark, but on a hill just across in Sweden. One in Norway under forest east of deer, one in north-eastern Sweden and one in Finland (guess where AI gets its mad Norse tech rate from )
Indy city in Lithuania/Poland has one, one north of there near "?" (cant remember name), a couple way out in Russia and some scattered in north Africa I believe.

Russian and African could be swapped for silver/gold easily enough if all gems in general are to be swapped for amber .. just remember that the Shrine of Uppsala uses gems as speed booster.

 

[3Miro]

No gems in Denmark, but on a hill just across in Sweden. One in Norway under forest east of deer, one in north-eastern Sweden and one in Finland (guess where AI gets its mad Norse tech rate from )
Indy city in Lithuania/Poland has one, one north of there near "?" (cant remember name), a couple way out in Russia and some scattered in north Africa I believe.

Russian and African could be swapped for silver/gold easily enough if all gems in general are to be swapped for amber .. just remember that the Shrine of Uppsala uses gems as speed booster.

Good so we can find new graphics. I think some of the Gems in Africa were to the south where it made no difference anyway.

 

[merijn_v1]

I will add the Amber tomorrow.

 

[merijn_v1]

A question to clarify some things for myself. Should I replace gems with Amber or should I add amber along the other resources?

 

[The Turk]

A question to clarify some things for myself. Should I replace gems with Amber or should I add amber along the other resources?

I definetly think amber should be added, in addition with gems and the other resources. BUT.. perhaps make gems more rarer, and give a bigger bonus. I mean there were gems on the crowns of European kings. Wales anybody? Huge gem deposit there in the Dark Ages.

 

[operafantom]

Hello Everyone!

I write down my ideas mostly on Hungary's present game situation.

Normally in the games I played, Hungary built a city west from Budapest (often Sopron, or Pozsony by name) which was destroyed or went to Austria when it spawned. That in fact I think weakened both, Hungary lost a city or gave it to Austria, while Wien couldn't develop well enough due to the other city. Also the territories didn't look precise, as Austria's territory almost always consists of lake Balaton which they should not while Hungary is alive.

So I changed the starting spot of Hungary, putting the capital on the other side of the
Danube, as I wanted to avoid the other city being built. I also didn't like that Upper
Hungary practically never had a Hungarian city in the game, because the Settlermap does not allow it basically, so I changed that, too (I tell you that only not to find it strange to have city Nyitra in the pics.) I tested the situation a few times (looking at it in 1522 starting with Sweden). The pictures show the results.

In my view the replacement helped to make the borderline more realistic, almost gets it
exactly right on the west-southwest, and Hungary doesn't build cities in the core area of Austria either. Changing the settlermap still seems good, but in some cases it makes Austrian settling impossible on the northeast with the city of Nyitra. Wien also seems to be always too small. So they might have gotten weaker, but they were weak anyway. Hungary's other cities are normal. Overall the strength of the two countries didn't change much, Hungary is generally around the middle, while Austria is around the bottom being someone's vassal even. But I suppose this area of the game will face major changes in the future anyway.

With putting the capital there, there should probably be some changes with the resource placing because this way the Hungarian capital has <d>a lot</d> of resources. And also it seems obvious that Austria should be made somehow stronger. But anyway what do you guys think?

Another thing: with provinces coming in (great feature!) there is now a given border between Austria and Hungary at Moravia and Upper Hungary. Austria normally builds Sillein in Moravia, which settlement in fact was in Hungary. So I suggest changing the city names there bringing in Olmütz, which is more precise I think. Also in the pictures you can see that I changed the capital's name from Budapest to only Buda. In a very old version it was Pest, and then it changed to Budapest, I also might have taken part in that debate and voted for Budapest, but I don't remember so well now . As I see it now, the capital should be named Buda. I say that because in the case of other civs (Poland, Turkey) the historical accuracy has become the bigger factor in selecting capital, that's why their capital has changed recently. So right now compared to the situation of almost every other capitals the name Budapest is pretty inadequate.
In the game the Hungarian Kingdom is present mainly as the medieval kingdom before the battle of Mohács 1526. In history afterwards the situation is pretty complicated, but the most important thing is that the legitimate kings were Habsburgs. In the game it should be represented as Austria conquers Hungary. That means Hungary is not present as a souvereign country in the game afterwards. So in naming the capital we should consider the historical situation before 1526 only, which would have stayed the same in case Ottomans did not defeat Hungary in 1526. In that period of time however the most important Hungarian city was Buda, not Pest (and also Buda and Pest united officially only in the 19th century). The royal palace was also in Buda. So even I thought in the past that the name Budapest would be better, right now Buda seems to be much more appropriate. In that case putting the city on the other side of the Danube would also be more correct I think.


And another thought: To solve the Austria problem I think the Ottomans' lack of interest in conquering Hungary is the main thing. Because when they destroy Hungary as they are supposed to, then Austria could conquer the territory of Hungary (as in reality). Wouldn't it be a better solution to have barbarian troops attack Hungary from the south representing the Ottomans' attack like in the case of Mongols? Of course then the cities should somehow later be given to Turkey that they conquered. My other idea would be that Austria spawns later (around 1500), with getting a Hungarian city and some German territories, or they should begin with improved cities from the beginning.

And the last one: about Mongols. In previous, very old versions they were too strong, which wasn't good but now they are too weak. Right now Hungary almost doesn't have to fight them at all. Well, in history Mongols wanted to conquer Hungary (The text of the letter of Batu Khan still exists). Yes, they couldn't capture the main cities that had good defense, but they defetad the army, they pillaged most of the countryland, farms, villages: mainly the Hungarian plains and the valleys of the bigger rivers. It was a big blow for Hungary really, even if the cities had survived, so it should be represented somehow with an improved Mongol attack.


Thank you for your patience, sorry about writing too long, but I hope I can help with that!

Anyway tremendous job so far with the mod and best wishes for the future!

 

[The Turk]

Wow, that looks like a pretty amazing game (map wise)

But I was just wondering something, when are you going to fix civilization names? I know that you've had it on your to-do list, but will the fixing of that come soon, as I'm sure I could help!

 

[Michael Vick]

I definetly think amber should be added, in addition with gems and the other resources. BUT.. perhaps make gems more rarer, and give a bigger bonus. I mean there were gems on the crowns of European kings. Wales anybody? Huge gem deposit there in the Dark Ages.

Agreed.

 

[Ogi123]

Well I opened polish WB save, expecting lots of empty places and improperly named cites. Imagine my surprise when after some hour (or more) with history atlas I concluded that city placement is mostly correct, barring of course scale of map ( no place for Nak&#322;o, Wi&#347;lica etc). But however do this, do solid piece of work, you can make some adjustments for example moving Lubusz directly under Cedynia, on both sides of Odra river etc. From author words I suspected something far worse.
About Poland UHV, current problem is that all 3 targets are more or less historical, I propose removing granary of Europe ( to similar to Kievan Rus gathering food UHV) in favor of something like controlling/vassalage Lithuania, Moscow, Kievan Rus before 1700, name UHV "Hegemon of the East" (or something like this), perhaps adding Hungary to the list? Other option is establishing permanent presence on Black sea coast (found number of cites here) "Commonwealth from sea to sea", or perhaps avoiding partitions, that means not losing any city to other power until 1795 (third partition).
As I said before, current problem is lack of resources in polish provinces.
Oh, moving starting location 1 NE to Gniezno is good idea, perhaps add 1 catholic missionary on start?

 

[civ_king]

A question to clarify some things for myself. Should I replace gems with Amber or should I add amber along the other resources?

Swap the Baltic gems with Amber (I'm pretty sure that is what they represent), leave the rest alone, also change the Shrine of Uppsala to Amber (which helps prevent uber-Constantinople).

I definetly think amber should be added, in addition with gems and the other resources. BUT.. perhaps make gems more rarer, and give a bigger bonus. I mean there were gems on the crowns of European kings. Wales anybody? Huge gem deposit there in the Dark Ages.

1) I couldn't find a source for Welsh gems,
2) Middle Ages, not Dark Ages!

Well I opened polish WB save, expecting lots of empty places and improperly named cites. Imagine my surprise when after some hour (or more) with history atlas I concluded that city placement is mostly correct, barring of course scale of map ( no place for Nak&#322;o, Wi&#347;lica etc). But however do this, do solid piece of work, you can make some adjustments for example moving Lubusz directly under Cedynia, on both sides of Odra river etc. From author words I suspected something far worse.
About Poland UHV, current problem is that all 3 targets are more or less historical, I propose removing granary of Europe ( to similar to Kievan Rus gathering food UHV) in favor of something like controlling/vassalage Lithuania, Moscow, Kievan Rus before 1700, name UHV "Hegemon of the East" (or something like this), perhaps adding Hungary to the list? Other option is establishing permanent presence on Black sea coast (found number of cites here) "Commonwealth from sea to sea", or perhaps avoiding partitions, that means not losing any city to other power until 1795 (third partition).
As I said before, current problem is lack of resources in polish provinces.
Oh, moving starting location 1 NE to Gniezno is good idea, perhaps add 1 catholic missionary on start?

Poland needs resources though, pleaser find those.


Is there any way to prevent corporation from getting absurd? As Muscovites Hanseatic League is giving me 29 and in a pop 20 city it gives -50 (which isn't hard since Hansa gives at least +6 pop)