RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

[AbsintheRed]

Well, there is no reason for the player not to make the switch to Trade Economy on your first turn. That one turn with just one city doesn't waste too much time.

Alright, that's a good point. It probably seems strange for most players that they have the possibility for the civic right away but still don't start with it.
This is probably true for some other civs as well, not just Cordoba... Should check all civs, if a clearly superior and/or historically fitting civic is available on start.
We still have 2 possible directions to follow in these cases:
- They should start with the civic
- The starting techs should be altered, so it's not up for grabs right away.
For Cordoba only the first one is a valid option, IIRC.

I reached the first Cordoban UHV just fine with the nerfed UP. Teching is a little hard because of very high upkeep but not too problematic.

Cool, sounds great!
Thanks for the save!

 

[AbsintheRed]

Running through the civs, regarding starting civics:
What's the opinion on Norway and Denmark starting with Militarism?

 

[Swarbs]

For Cordoba, I have previously found the first UHV can be a bit luck dependent. I think if Byzantium doesn't lose Constantinople, or at least suffer significant war and raiding, it can be hard for Cordoba to catch up. Maybe giving the Noria a food bonus rather than a production bonus would be more appropriate - after all norias were generally used for irrigation, not to power mills or other productive activity.

I think Norway and Denmark should definitely start with militarism, given that their first couple of UHVs are pretty much all military focused.

 

[PiR]

Running through the civs, regarding starting civics:
What's the opinion on Norway and Denmark starting with Militarism?

As historically agressive, that would make sense. However, did the Vikings ever made a lasting empire? I don't think so. So they don't really deserve the stability of Militarism or if we want them to fall at some point, there has to be something else in the balance. Maybe the fact that they conquer cities far away and it's hard to send reinforcements will make them loose their possessions?
I'm sure I will regret not saying just YES when I will play them

 

[AbsintheRed]

For Cordoba, I have previously found the first UHV can be a bit luck dependent. I think if Byzantium doesn't lose Constantinople, or at least suffer significant war and raiding, it can be hard for Cordoba to catch up. Maybe giving the Noria a food bonus rather than a production bonus would be more appropriate - after all norias were generally used for irrigation, not to power mills or other productive activity.

They could probably use some help with the UHV.
But I'm a little reluctant to add direct food bonus to the Noria, since Folwark (the other Granary replacement UB) already has that.
Norias do have a health bonus, which partly contributes to city growth with the Cordoban UP.

 

[AbsintheRed]

As historically agressive, that would make sense. However, did the Vikings ever made a lasting empire? I don't think so. So they don't really deserve the stability of Militarism or if we want them to fall at some point, there has to be something else in the balance. Maybe the fact that they conquer cities far away and it's hard to send reinforcements will make them loose their possessions?
I'm sure I will regret not saying just YES when I will play them

Yeah, both civs could use some stability help in the early game.
We will see how will they behave in the later game with it, it's not that big bonus after all.
It might only be significant for the human player, but he/she could achieve it anyway with a first turn anarchy - for some minor costs.

 

[Swarbs]

They could probably use some help with the UHV.
But I'm a little reluctant to add direct food bonus to the Noria, since Folwark (the other Granary replacement UB) already has that.
Norias do have a health bonus, which partly contributes to city growth with the Cordoban UP.

If anything, the Folwark should have the hammer bonus imo. Both for historical reasons, with folwarks essentially forcing serfdom on many Polish peasants, and because Poland doesn't, imo need the extra food to meet its UHV.

 

[Swarbs]

As historically agressive, that would make sense. However, did the Vikings ever made a lasting empire? I don't think so. So they don't really deserve the stability of Militarism or if we want them to fall at some point, there has to be something else in the balance. Maybe the fact that they conquer cities far away and it's hard to send reinforcements will make them loose their possessions?
I'm sure I will regret not saying just YES when I will play them

If you're talking AI Vikings, they generally don't conquer more than parts of Ireland and Scotland anyway, which is pretty historical for them to hold considering the Kingdom of Norway controlled parts of modern day Scotland until the 15th century. Regardless of the war map, the AI can't generally succeed in holding anything any distance from Scandinavia. Don't think they need anything to make them collapse.

If it's for the player, then we shouldn't really be looking for force them to fall apart unless they make errors. And ultimately any player will switch to Militarism on the first turn when playing them as they will need to get conquering pretty soon to meet the UHVs. So all it removes is the annoyance of that first turn of unnecessary anarchy.

 

[PiR]

Yep, OK, agreed! Let's avoid the first turn of Anarchy then.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Yep, OK, agreed! Let's avoid the first turn of Anarchy then.

Yep, it's already in
That's what I meant here:

We will see how will they behave in the later game with it, it's not that big bonus after all.
It might only be significant for the human player, but he/she could achieve it anyway with a first turn anarchy - for some minor costs.

 

[PiR]

I must admit I really admire your devotion to this mod after all these years.
Too bad I only discovered recently (played Vanilla RFC without getting bored for 10 years)

 

[AbsintheRed]

I must admit I really admire your devotion to this mod after all these years.
Too bad I only discovered recently (played Vanilla RFC without getting bored for 10 years)

Yeah, there are no problems with motivation/devotion, I have way too many plans with the mod.
Time is the primary issue... but I guess this is true for most modders.
On the other hand, I'm making rather good progress nowadays. Even better news that I was able to keep a more or less constant pace in the last couple months.

 

[Baron03]

Launched a Muscovy game, and I noticed that Novgorod, Kiev (because they survived mongols, and their cities flip back to them) , Morocco, and Cordova all settle their cities very close. I’m pointing these out since they tend to give bad cities, and too many for their respective areas.

Novgorod wasn’t too bad this time. It’s an old complaint/observation, but I think it is still valid since these AI fill up useless space in a grid like pattern (cities tending to be parallel and only two tiles between them).

miscellaneous thing: I’ve noticed a few “Mounted Sergeant” and other unit names appearing as great generals dying. There’s no unique names.

Edit: although I’m very glad that there was an update to the svn recently! I was very excited back when you wanted to add more turns to the mid. I ended up with a folder full of suggestions on paper, albeit I misplaced some of it.

 

[El Bogus]

Some civs are extremely hard to vassalize. Is that intended? Here is an example in which I tried to capitulate Sweden: All they have left is Helsingfors, an Arbalestier in said city and one War Galley.

 

[PiR]

Why does he refuse capitulation? (hoover over the red text)
How many vassals do you already have?

 

[Swarbs]

Some civs are extremely hard to vassalize. Is that intended? Here is an example in which I tried to capitulate Sweden: All they have left is Helsingfors, an Arbalestier in said city and one War Galley.
View attachment 550483 View attachment 550482

Looks like you already have three vassals - England, Scotland and Spain. If that's the case, then I think it becomes incrementally much harder to vassalise any more civs, even through capitulation. IIRC that's a gameplay choice designed to make it much more difficult to vassalise the entire world.

 

[El Bogus]

Ah, okay. That seems fair. Makes the Conquest Victory a bit harder.

 

[gilgames]

I tried a few thing with Arabs. None of them worked. If you beeline farries, there is not enough time to make it. If you rush HA army to west, you collapse.

Starting techs and civics are working against you, except Theocracy. Cities go indi at shaky too, and so on. I might be a bit rusty, but it seems nigh on. I think its only needs a bit fine tuning, some extra time would make wonders, or an extra tech like engeneering.

 

[El Bogus]

It is a very close shave. I recommend the following build order: 1. Switch to Tribal Law immediately (State Religion optional). Second city is up to you but I always send my settler down south to the Arabia province as it's required for the UHV, anyway.
2. Work boats until all your sea food is improved, workers until every cities has at least one. Research Manorialism in the meantime. After that, turn science slider to 0% until you feel you have enough Houses of Wisdom (I start teching when the first one is built).
3. Build a Galley in Sur, Settler in Jerusalem (Hopefully it's at least size 4).
4. Manor houses, Bazaar in capital and low commerce cities, House of Wisdom in the rest of your cities.

Dedicate one of your cities to building units. Sur is a good candidate when working the high hammer tiles on the hills.
Expand into Antiochia and take Alexandria and Barca/Cyrene (So all of your (green) historical provinces belong to you and don't drain your stability). Send at least 3 of your Horse Archers back to Jerusalem and/or Arabia to defend against the pillaging Barbarians.
When your stability is high enough continue your conquest. Be on time with your settler for Crete (but wait to settle until 852 AD) and your Galley for Sicily.
Pray to Allah to grant you good RNG. That way, hopefully none of your cities declare independence.


I achieved UHV 1 with a lot of save&load on Emperor. So, if you think that's cheating, it's totally okay. I just wanted to include a screenshot. The above strategy should work on Monarch after a few tries and focused gameplay, though.

EDIT: Starting at peace with Byzantium will give you two extra Horse Archers when they DOW you at the flip of Sur and Jerusalem. So, it's worth to load a few maps.

 

[Baron03]

Played a few early Lithuania games and I had a minor observation. Smolensk flips to Russia for its spawn. I know it has always been this way, but does it flip to help prevent AI Russia from being overrun by its neighbors?

Historically Smolensk would be an independent city by Russia's spawn (and not flip). I know Russia didn't gain control until the early 16th century. Would it be a good idea to remove Smolensk from Russia's flip zone? Considering the territory they start with as the human player, it shouldn't be too difficult to have Smolensk as an early obstacle.