RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

[3Miro]

Is this a bug, or a gameplay mechanic I've overlooked? The great Sea Walls of Constantiople kicking in?

What's the issue? Constantinople has the Theodosian Walls that provide huge defensive bonus. You can bombard that from the sea. This is standard BtS mechanics. Did you mean something else?

Plus, what's the deal with Hadrianople? No matter who holds the city (Byz, Bulgaria, Ottos), they often turn it into a massive citadel. Knowing this, I had to plan from the very beginning as Russia to beseige the city, building up a force of 40+ Boyars, 40+ pistoliers, 10 bombards, 10 musketmen, and 10 spies (to bring down the start fort and create revolts to stip city defenses) while building forces for my Lithuanian, Polish and Finno-Swedish campaigns. Fortunately I took Bulgaria, and they were kind enough to build Kalmar Castle for me, and Bulgaria, Rus' and Lithuania had settled several Great Generals in their key cities, so after settling my own GGs, I could produce several Combat 2 + Flanking 2 pistoliers (Flanking 2 is so awesome - 70% withdrawal chance CANNOT be underestimated & combined with combat = one badassed seige unit). I built several longbows in cities with ranges so I could upgrate to strong muskets to protect my Bulgarian cities, and then built muskets with Hillsmen 3 to fortify on the north Thracian hils to protect my cavalry stacks as they beseiged Edirne.

The other issue with AI turtling is lack of offense against a seige - with 40+ pistoliers in the city, the Ottos could have given me a true heartbreak by attacking my stacks with high withdrawal odds (since turn one invoved moving units to the hills outside town, and not being able to attack), but the AI never sends out more than 2 or 3 units from a turtled city like this (unless you occupy one of the 8 tiles bordering the city).

THe plan worked out for me, as I managed to bring down a city with 70+ units garrisoned inside within 3 turns, but it only worked because I knew this would happen - this one city always winds up a massive citadel. Is this behaviour something the AI is hard-coded to to, or is it just a quirk of the AI to garrison certian cities to ludicrous levels (I also see France/Burgundy/Dutch do this with Anvers/Antwerpen often, as well)? I probably shouldn't complain, though, as the alternative is seeing the military spread out to 10 + units per city instead of 50+ in one city.

I think the AI doesn't realize the withdrawal odds as in BtS one usually doesn't get +70% withdrawal. The general AI scheme of Civ 4 is very bad, every unit tries to figure out what to do by itself without consideration for other units. The concept of "guard my own territory by overwhelming the enemy with numbers" seems to be lost, all the AI sees is "the enemy is strong, I cannot win 1 on 1, so I'd better stay fortified in my cities".

The "every unit for itself" mechanics also leads to those huge stacks in the cities. Units try to find the best city to garrison themselves and it is always the same city. There is no general consideration about what other units are doing.

The worst example of this is when the AI has to use ships to transport units. This requires coordination of two units, which is next to impossible (when it happens it is purely by accident).

I will look into the unit AI mechanics, those haven't been updated in some time. There are XML flags telling the AI what different units could be used for.

I will see what I can do, but I don't hope for too much.

 

[3Miro]

I always wondered how the warmaps are implemented. Are they only used in AIWars.py ?
The GlobalContext also has an attribute WarMaps that gets initialized in RFCEBAlance.py preMapsNSizes, is this ever used?

def preMapsNSizes( self ):
   [..]
   gc.setWarsMap( i, y, x, rfcemaps.tWarsMaps[i][y][x] )

This simply stores the war maps as a C++ array so that we can make searches faster. As a scripting language, Python is very slow when it comes to for loops and such.

It would be cool to merge the warmaps into the mechanics Firaxis uses to set up wars.
I don't know how much work it is to make the warmaps visible in the dll, but if this could be achieved then i think it is relatively easy to use them. By looking over CvTeamAI.cpp two functions catched my eye:

• CvTeamAI::AI_startWarVal (TeamTypes eTeam) - It is called on every team our team would go to war with, to decide which one is the most valuable target for us.
  Before this function gets called certain criterias are checked first. Some random number rolls if our team wants to go to war in general(iLimitedWarRand, iDogpileWarRand), our team power vs. target team power, our attitude for target team, etc..
  
• CvTeamAI::AI_declareWarTradeVal - It is called when the human player asks an AI civ to declare war on another civ.

The difficulty would be to find adequat values for the warmaps in relation to the other factors. The benefit would be that the AI has time to prepare for a war and that it would not start a war that it thinks it can't win.

I think the war maps are already considered in the AI strategy for war, but I may be wrong (it may be the Settlers maps not the war maps, I have to double-check).

The AI would eventually send units to attack you, but it does a very lousy job.

For the time now there are two other options you could try with the python code.

• the function declareWar accepts a WarPlanType as argument. This is currently not used when wars are declared between Major players. But it is used for MinorWars. It is also not used for the Crusades.
  

  AIWars.py
  def initWar(..)
     gc.getTeam(gc.getPlayer(iCiv).getTeam()).declareWar(iTargetCiv, True, [COLOR="Red"]-1[/COLOR]) ##False?

  RFCUtil.py
  def minorWars(...)
     [...]
     teamMinor.declareWar(iActiveCiv, False, [COLOR="Red"]WarPlanTypes.WARPLAN_LIMITED[/COLOR])

  
  
• As an alternativ the function AI_setWarPlan(int eTargetTeam, int eWarPlanType) could be used. This gives the AI time to prepare for a war, but it risks that the plan gets cancelled before the actual declaration of war is made.

I am still of the opinion that in RFCE almost all declarations of war happen due to set ups in the python code.
Was it intended to prefer the scripted and therefor more historical way over the more dynamic way through the means Firaxis already provided us?

Declarations happen artificially due to the war module, they happen on 2/3 victories and yes the AI probably never declares "normal war". Note that war plan of -1 means that the AI should select a war plan, we use an artificial one for the Independents so that we don't get the AI hunting Indy cities all over the map (Independents are not in one geographical location).

I will have to take a deeper look into the whole war mechanics, but it may be hard to figure it out.

Caliom, can you take a look at the leaderheads and see if you can adjust the parameters there? We added a lot of leaders recently and the attitude modifiers need an overhaul.

 

[Caliom]

Caliom, can you take a look at the leaderheads and see if you can adjust the parameters there? We added a lot of leaders recently and the attitude modifiers need an overhaul.

I will look on it. Can i alter the values like i suggested? (remove bonus for sharing same religion, lower NoWarAttitudeProbs, etc..)
I have no knowledge on which leader is supposed to be more aggressiv than others but i will do my best and report then.

 

[rock_star]

What's the issue? Constantinople has the Theodosian Walls that provide huge defensive bonus. You can bombard that from the sea. This is standard BtS mechanics. Did you mean something else?

All my carracks bombarded, but I reduced their defenses by 0% - are there factors that could cause bombardment to fail (like religion/corporations failing to spread)? If so, this is the first time I've seen it, so I'm assuming it's a bug, but if not I'm curious what would cause it so I can defend against bombardment myself. Fortunately, I had plenty of healthy pistoliers in Edirne to take the city and UHV goal 2 turns later, but it was much bloodier with the city's defences 90% stronger.

I think the AI doesn't realize the withdrawal odds as in BtS one usually doesn't get +70% withdrawal. The general AI scheme of Civ 4 is very bad, every unit tries to figure out what to do by itself without consideration for other units. The concept of "guard my own territory by overwhelming the enemy with numbers" seems to be lost, all the AI sees is "the enemy is strong, I cannot win 1 on 1, so I'd better stay fortified in my cities".

The "every unit for itself" mechanics also leads to those huge stacks in the cities. Units try to find the best city to garrison themselves and it is always the same city. There is no general consideration about what other units are doing.

The worst example of this is when the AI has to use ships to transport units. This requires coordination of two units, which is next to impossible (when it happens it is purely by accident).

I will look into the unit AI mechanics, those haven't been updated in some time. There are XML flags telling the AI what different units could be used for.

I will see what I can do, but I don't hope for too much.

Thanks for the info.

Another question regarding AI and wars - what determines the AI's willingness to talk peace? Sometimes a rival refuses to talk for far longer than it seems it should take: I stupidly attacked the Ottomans before I'd officially defeated Poland, and I attacked Poland before I'd officially settled peace with Sweden, so my empire was continuously at war for a century or two. Just for fun, though, I kept playing another 10-15 turns after winning, and many cities are starving (I have a size 14 city where the entire populace is protesting war), but Burgundy (defensive pact w/ Suleiman) refuses to talk. I can enter diplomacy with the Ottomans, but they tell me no deal is possible (funny, since I've taken their two best cities and devastated their military - they should be eager to settle with me), so I'm assuming I need to kill all my sliders and offer them a huge sum of gold, but Burgundy has me stumped.

I also have a Germany game going where Spain has DOW'ed on me, some 15-20 turns later, they still refuse to talk. I refused to give in to their demands for wheat for -1 point, and 2 turns earlier attacked France, their friend for another -1, and that's it for negative modifiers between us. Funnily enough, I took Troyes from France, and then settled quickly, within 4 turns of the war, and I'd already captured Paris at spawn. France had reason to fume and prolong the war, but they settled at the quickest opportunity). I've wrecked the Spanish expeditionary force, so they pose zero threat to me now, and just like Burgundy from my Muscovy game, I still can't enter diplomacy mode with them. Is there anything useful I should do in these situations - should I play Commodore Perry with them and show up with a large stack at their borders until they cave, or is there nothing that can be done other than wait it out?

Also - for what it's worth, I've seen the AI value withdrawal odds before - in my Byz game, while attempting to take a small indy city, I left my attackers outside the city to heal for 3 or 4 turns. For each of these turns, they sent the same archer or seargent out to harrass my attackers with only a red sliver of health left, and each time he rolled the dice, he got to withdraw. This did no damage, of course, but I did learn to value the power of withdrawal. This may have been a one time event, though, because I don't recall seeing the AI attacking when their units are in the red range of health before, but Indy leader does funny things - if he inherits a city with a huge stack of troops, he'll won't turtle the troops - he'll send them out if you don't give it a few turns for the troops to disband from lack of funds.

 

[3Miro]

I will look on it. Can i alter the values like i suggested? (remove bonus for sharing same religion, lower NoWarAttitudeProbs, etc..)
I have no knowledge on which leader is supposed to be more aggressiv than others but i will do my best and report then.

You can remove the same religion bonuses (or lower them drastically to cap at +1 or +2). You can also make the AI more aggressive.

For the leader aggression, we can make all of them more aggressive, as is they are nowhere near what they need to be. Most notable ones are Isabella of Spain, William of England, Simeon of Bulgaria and all of the Arabian leaders.

 

[3Miro]

All my carracks bombarded, but I reduced their defenses by 0% - are there factors that could cause bombardment to fail (like religion/corporations failing to spread)? If so, this is the first time I've seen it, so I'm assuming it's a bug, but if not I'm curious what would cause it so I can defend against bombardment myself. Fortunately, I had plenty of healthy pistoliers in Edirne to take the city and UHV goal 2 turns later, but it was much bloodier with the city's defences 90% stronger.

Did they have a Star Fort in Constantinople? This can change things.

Also, City Walls bonuses cannot be taken down with gunpowder units (and the bonus doesn't count anyway).

90% is still high, do you have a savegame?

Thanks for the info.

Another question regarding AI and wars - what determines the AI's willingness to talk peace? Sometimes a rival refuses to talk for far longer than it seems it should take: I stupidly attacked the Ottomans before I'd officially defeated Poland, and I attacked Poland before I'd officially settled peace with Sweden, so my empire was continuously at war for a century or two. Just for fun, though, I kept playing another 10-15 turns after winning, and many cities are starving (I have a size 14 city where the entire populace is protesting war), but Burgundy (defensive pact w/ Suleiman) refuses to talk. I can enter diplomacy with the Ottomans, but they tell me no deal is possible (funny, since I've taken their two best cities and devastated their military - they should be eager to settle with me), so I'm assuming I need to kill all my sliders and offer them a huge sum of gold, but Burgundy has me stumped.

I also have a Germany game going where Spain has DOW'ed on me, some 15-20 turns later, they still refuse to talk. I refused to give in to their demands for wheat for -1 point, and 2 turns earlier attacked France, their friend for another -1, and that's it for negative modifiers between us. Funnily enough, I took Troyes from France, and then settled quickly, within 4 turns of the war, and I'd already captured Paris at spawn. France had reason to fume and prolong the war, but they settled at the quickest opportunity). I've wrecked the Spanish expeditionary force, so they pose zero threat to me now, and just like Burgundy from my Muscovy game, I still can't enter diplomacy mode with them. Is there anything useful I should do in these situations - should I play Commodore Perry with them and show up with a large stack at their borders until they cave, or is there nothing that can be done other than wait it out?

Also - for what it's worth, I've seen the AI value withdrawal odds before - in my Byz game, while attempting to take a small indy city, I left my attackers outside the city to heal for 3 or 4 turns. For each of these turns, they sent the same archer or seargent out to harrass my attackers with only a red sliver of health left, and each time he rolled the dice, he got to withdraw. This did no damage, of course, but I did learn to value the power of withdrawal. This may have been a one time event, though, because I don't recall seeing the AI attacking when their units are in the red range of health before, but Indy leader does funny things - if he inherits a city with a huge stack of troops, he'll won't turtle the troops - he'll send them out if you don't give it a few turns for the troops to disband from lack of funds.

In the case of an artificial war created by Python, the AI will not talk to you for quite some time. Otherwise, they should be relatively willing to settle.

For the rest, I am simply not sure. I will delve into the AI as much as I can to see what I can figure out.

 

[rock_star]

Did they have a Star Fort in Constantinople? This can change things.

Also, City Walls bonuses cannot be taken down with gunpowder units (and the bonus doesn't count anyway).

90% is still high, do you have a savegame?

The Star Fort explains it all. I didn't realize the naval bombardment would do nothing against a Star Fort. The spies in the screen cap destroyed their Star Fort on the next turn. I guess I should have waited a turn to launch my navy.

 

[MessageMan]

If the Mercenaries are bugged in RFC, then they are here. We have made almost no changes to the merc code. Do you know where the bug was or do you have a link to edead's explanations?

He didn't detail the code he changed so you'll have to contact him.

 

[3Miro]

Heads up on the AI front. The Units have a number of AI flags about what their use is. Many of them were obsolete/meaningless, hopefully the AI would now know what to do with them. Keep fingers crossed.

 

[ezzlar]

Heads up on the AI front. The Units have a number of AI flags about what their use is. Many of them were obsolete/meaningless, hopefully the AI would now know what to do with them. Keep fingers crossed.

Sounds interesting! Anything we can download soon?

 

[3Miro]

Sounds interesting! Anything we can download soon?

Beta 12 for next week. We already have updates to the map and Norse UHV. I hope to get a new Lithuania and maybe Polish UHV. There is also a number of minor tweaks that I want to include.

 

[Jusos2108]

The concept of "guard my own territory by overwhelming the enemy with numbers" seems to be lost, all the AI sees is "the enemy is strong, I cannot win 1 on 1, so I'd better stay fortified in my cities".

The "every unit for itself" mechanics also leads to those huge stacks in the cities. Units try to find the best city to garrison themselves and it is always the same city. There is no general consideration about what other units are doing.

Great that you put some effort into this, as imo this is the biggest issue left to overcome in the mod. Checking what Edead has done with SoI might help, because the Ai functions quite well in it.

Anyways keep up the good work!

 

[Mardouro]

I have a savegame from 1470 polish commonwealth in which switching to Apprenticeship and Imperialism takes 1 turn, but then, in another savegame from 1476, the same change takes 2 turns. Why does this happen?
Apart from the date, the only difference from those saves is the number of cities that increased +1 to 17 in total. Is that related?

 

[The Turk]

@3Miro and whoever

Before you release Beta 12, can you pretty please create a new background. The RFC BtS background does not fit RFC Europe AT ALL! So please at least change the title!

PS. Also for the Arabian UHV's please remove "the" in front of Islam. Thanks!

 

[rock_star]

How do I discourage spy specialists (rather than manually adjusting them in each city screen)? I'm so over my city governors assuming I want to pop Great Spies all the time and defaulting to them at city growth.

Also - what are the chances of Gustav II Adolf being added as a Swedish leader? I know he was killed well before his time, but he's the most revered Swedish monarch (admired for his battlefield skills from Napoleon to Patton), but he seems to be a better fit as leader than Charles XII (while Charles took the empire to it's zenith, he was the king under whom the empire went into decline, and who may have been killed by his own soldiers).

 

[3Miro]

How do I discourage spy specialists (rather than manually adjusting them in each city screen)? I'm so over my city governors assuming I want to pop Great Spies all the time and defaulting to them at city growth.

This is a problem with Civ in general, I don't think I can fix it.

Also - what are the chances of Gustav II Adolf being added as a Swedish leader? I know he was killed well before his time, but he's the most revered Swedish monarch (admired for his battlefield skills from Napoleon to Patton), but he seems to be a better fit as leader than Charles XII (while Charles took the empire to it's zenith, he was the king under whom the empire went into decline, and who may have been killed by his own soldiers).

Do you have any good art?

 

[3Miro]

@3Miro and whoever

Before you release Beta 12, can you pretty please create a new background. The RFC BtS background does not fit RFC Europe AT ALL! So please at least change the title!

I will see what I can find. If I find something good, I will add it.

PS. Also for the Arabian UHV's please remove "the" in front of Islam. Thanks!

OK. I don't think I put "the" in the names, do you know when and why it was added?

 

[Science Rules]

3Miro,

I'm just curious, are you still planning to replace Ephesus with Smyrna?

 

[3Miro]

3Miro,

I'm just curious, are you still planning to replace Ephesus with Smyrna?

1. Was there ever any agreement. I remember a very heated (*cough* *trollish*) discussion about one stone resource and one fish resource. At one point, I just stopped paying attention.

2. On the scale of the map, we are talking about changing the name, not the spot, right?

 

[The Turk]

OK. I don't think I put "the" in the names, do you know when and why it was added?

Ya, thats the funny thing, I thought someone had fixed that, but when I loaded up the game yesterday, the UHV name was wrong again

(the mystery ensues).

As for the background, if you could at least change the name I think it would be much better. I think once the background changes, the game will come just that much closer to looking complete, since having an RFC background, is kind of strange

Also did you beef up the Spanish recently? Or am I forgetting something? I started up a game, and I found it a lot easier, its no problem, in fact I liked it, but I don't remember having it be so easy in the past.

Also the British need to spawn with more of France (not just one city). They should get Brittany (Rennes) and Normandy (Rouen).