RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

[Wessel V1]

I think combat odds could better be presented by a chance of survival. This also leaves room for siege units to get a proper xp mechanism. However, winning the combat should always be prefered to just surviving, so I'd give one bonus experience point for winning in stead of survival. Exploits like 99.9% + <0.1% battles resulting in 2 xp should be fixed on beforehand (maybe only give the extra xp in battles where the chance of retreat is above a certain value?), but the system as a whole seems less exploitable.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Weren't free barb wins at the beginning removed in RFCE?

Yeah, free wins were removed a couple months ago

 

[AbsintheRed]

I think combat odds could better be presented by a chance of survival. This also leaves room for siege units to get a proper xp mechanism. However, winning the combat should always be prefered to just surviving, so I'd give one bonus experience point for winning in stead of survival. Exploits like 99.9% + <0.1% battles resulting in 2 xp should be fixed on beforehand (maybe only give the extra xp in battles where the chance of retreat is above a certain value?), but the system as a whole seems less exploitable.

I'm not sure what are you saying here with the 1 additional xp point when winning a battle.
You can only get 1 xp when you retreat

 

[Wessel V1]

I was referring to the post srpt made earlier. I think his idea was a little harsh, because xp would become really slow and there would be no benefit of winning harder battles. Basically, my proposed system would be that in stead of the chance of victory, the chance of survival counts. So, if you have a battle with 10% chance of winning and an additional 76.5% of retreat (which is possible), you won't receive a lot of xp for winning, but only 2 xp, since you get 2 xp for winning an 86.5% battle in the current situation. However, since I think a win should be prefered to a draw, the winner receives 1 more xp, so he gets 3. Another benefit in my opinion would be that catapults can finally receive more than 1 xp per battle, which I find unfair.

 

[gilgames]

Yeah, free wins were removed a couple months ago

Not exactly, since 1.2 is not out, in 1.1 there is free wins! Otherwise, I suggest NOT to remove in 1.2!

@Wessel

I got the point in ur fisrt post, and lost it in the 2.
Btw imo exp gain should be rethinked with promotions too. Catapulst like units should have similar use like bombers in civ4. They do collaterral dmg for 1 xp, and no injuries, and if a mounted unit attack a stack of units /w cata's, they all suffer dmg regardless of the result of the figth. So if you use them wisely, can gain nice xp, without loosing the at sieges to break down enemies health by cata's sacrifice. what about this?

 

[DC123456789]

No, the point is that barbarians are far too likely to raze cities in general.

And yes, Kiev is really weak right now.

Still waiting for a reply.

 

[AdrienIer]

and if a mounted unit attack a stack of units /w cata's, they all suffer dmg regardless of the result of the figth.

So I can basically send suicide skirmishers to attack the ennemy stack knowing that I'll damage the catapults anyway ?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Still waiting for a reply.

I'm not sure what should I reply
Kiev is weak, yes, while some of the civs are too powerful
Balancing in detail will come after the new civs are in

 

[Wessel V1]

I got the point in ur fisrt post, and lost it in the 2.
Btw imo exp gain should be rethinked with promotions too. Catapulst like units should have similar use like bombers in civ4. They do collaterral dmg for 1 xp, and no injuries, and if a mounted unit attack a stack of units /w cata's, they all suffer dmg regardless of the result of the figth. So if you use them wisely, can gain nice xp, without loosing the at sieges to break down enemies health by cata's sacrifice. what about this?

Both ware basically about the same so if you understand the first post I think you get what I was trying to say in the second.

 

[DC123456789]

I'm not sure what should I reply
Kiev is weak, yes, while some of the civs are too powerful
Balancing in detail will come after the new civs are in

No, I meant the fact that the barbarians are a little too raze-happy.

 

[gilgames]

So I can basically send suicide skirmishers to attack the ennemy stack knowing that I'll damage the catapults anyway ?

Yes, although skirmishers shouldnt do a big dmg! specially if they loose the battle. As i mentoined (at least wanted) USE THEM WISELY!!! So when you go to war, just like in RL, clear the land and prepare to the siege! an addistion to the idea: cata's like units 1 move+attack, or take the risk of counter them from the city. need to test options.

@AR I hope u will count on me to test new civs

 

[AbsintheRed]

No, I meant the fact that the barbarians are a little too raze-happy.

It wasn't changed for years now, at least not directly
Also, I don't really mind if they raze a couple cities, in fact it does good for gameplay
How many razed cities are we talking about? (percentage)

@AR I hope u will count on me to test new civs

It will be up on the SVN, as usual
Check how to use it in the sticky thread

 

[gilgames]

It wasn't changed for years now, at least not directly
Also, I don't really mind if they raze a couple cities, in fact it does good for gameplay
How many razed cities are we talking about? (percentage)



It will be up on the SVN, as usual
Check how to use it in the sticky thread

Barbs used to raze 20-50% depending how strong they are vs you.

Hogy a rákba kell azt megnézni? dobj már egy privit. pls

 

[AbsintheRed]

Barbs used to raze 20-50% depending how strong they are vs you.

No, it doesn't depend on that
50% seems much, 20-30% is probably okay

Hogy a rákba kell azt megnézni? dobj már egy privit. pls

This is the thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=485431
It's detailed enough IMO, should be a piece of cake to put it up

 

[gilgames]

No, it doesn't depend on that
50% seems much, 20-30% is probably okay

I mean: Your strength determines how much they raze! i.e. if you play Byz and dont focus 100% on the eastern borders, they raze all the cities there (might be good to resttler better,but..) thats much. In kiev, you can handle them a bit better/ raze less..
Thats how your strength determines it.

 

[civ_king]

Pro-tip, you can only use languages other than English if you include a translation with them in the post.

 

[gilgames]

Pro-tip, you can only use languages other than English if you include a translation with them in the post.

it was some personal stuff and he repieled in english

 

[DC123456789]

It wasn't changed for years now, at least not directly
Also, I don't really mind if they raze a couple cities, in fact it does good for gameplay
How many razed cities are we talking about? (percentage)

Not sure about percentage, but I'm guessing at least 50%, if not more. Anatolia gets completely razed out during the Seljuk invasion, and again during the Mongols. It's not uncommon to see Kiev completely gone (only a few improvements, roads, and city ruins left) before the Mongols arrive. When they do, Poland and Hungary suffer; I've seen eastern Hungary completely razed out.

 

[gilgames]

I won a game with hungary (on monarch) and had no prob with barbs at all. Nor at 1250 nor later, but its might be harder to AI. Whatever the percentage is high anyway

pps: from now on i wont refer to viceroy games.

also downloaded the svn version, and founf the first problem: /w Bulgaria if you conquer Contantinapolis its not renamed to Tsarirgad!!
other remanings should be ckecked too

 

[rfcfanatic]

How about improving the Victory Conditions screen for Sweden in such way that it would give more feedback about the UHV progress?

* The Uniting Sweden section could show already conquered provinces in green font and yet-to-be-conquered provinces in red font.

* The Lion of the North section could list all cities controlled in these provinces and display the city count.