RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

[JediClemente]

The crusades are definitely broken.

If seljuks don't collapse Arabs just before 1090, crusaders do. They always take Jerusalem, as Arabs are very weak from the barbarian attacks.

This means testing Dutch starts (1580), the Middle East is always conquered by France, Burgundy or Venezia mostly.

Something must be done.

I would nerf the Seljuk invasion, or strengthen the later ones (the two mongol ones).

Also, Constantinople keeps unconquerable, even if Ottomans expand a lot. I think they're afraid of the massive +200% defense. Maybe making it obsolete with Gunpowder is a good idea.

 

[Hangly Man]

Are there any 'perks' being Orthodox or Protestant?

No

The game is rigged so Orthodoxy always loses. Constantinople can be captured, Rome can't. Papal favor is a factor in the game, Patriarchal favor isn't. Also Catholicism spreads way way faster, and most western civs start with a Catholic priest. Not even Bulgaria gets one of those, and Orthodoxy is part of their UHV.

Historically this is not quite accurate. It was not a foregone conclusion that places like Poland and Germany would convert to Catholicism.

Civs need to start without religions. Let Rome and Constantinople duke it out.

Actually Constantinople really needs to have all the powers the pope has, there's no reason why it shouldn't.

 

[JediClemente]

Yes, there is a reason. Christian Orthodoxy is not united as Catholicism is. There is no proper "Orthodox Pope", nor any comparable figure for that matter.

In RFCE orthodox civs get a stability bonus and civic upkeep discount with faith points. It's just different from catholic civs.

Religion is already messed up as it is, with Norse and Ottomans converting to Orthodoxy too often. And for the record I don't like Bulgaria without a starting missionary.

BTW it makes no difference for orthodox civs wether Constantinople is captured or not.

 

[JediClemente]

Yes, there is a reason. Christian Orthodoxy is not united as Catholicism is. There is no proper "Orthodox Pope", nor any comparable figure for that matter.

In RFCE orthodox civs get a stability bonus and civic upkeep discount with faith points. It's just different from catholic civs.

Religion is already messed up as it is, with Norse and Ottomans converting to Orthodoxy too often. And for the record I don't like Bulgaria without a starting missionary.

BTW it makes no difference for orthodox civs wether Constantinople is captured or not.

 

[3Miro]

No

The game is rigged so Orthodoxy always loses. Constantinople can be captured, Rome can't. Papal favor is a factor in the game, Patriarchal favor isn't. Also Catholicism spreads way way faster, and most western civs start with a Catholic priest. Not even Bulgaria gets one of those, and Orthodoxy is part of their UHV.

Historically this is not quite accurate. It was not a foregone conclusion that places like Poland and Germany would convert to Catholicism.

Civs need to start without religions. Let Rome and Constantinople duke it out.

Actually Constantinople really needs to have all the powers the pope has, there's no reason why it shouldn't.

I don't know how many of you realize this, but I am the one who came up with the Faith Points idea and I am Bulgarian (I am not really religious, but if I were to belong to any religion it would be Orthodox). So there is no Catholic bias in this at all.

Orthodox players get stability boost and lower civic maintenance cost, for a large empire this amounts to more gold than you can ever get from the Pope. Orthodox players do not participate in Crusades, but Byzantium and Bulgaria are close enough to Arabia and the Ottomans to mount a direct assault on their own and Russia did not have a conflict with the Muslim world until the Crusades were long over. Orthodox players are also generally immune to Crusades (except for a deviated one and that only covers Constantinople). In addition, capturing Constantinople is a perk for the Orthodox players due to Haga Sophia and the gold bonus which Catholics cannot get from St. Paul's Cathedral.

From a historical point of view, the Patriarch is nothing like the Pope in terms of influence. In the early 10th century, the Bulgarian church has reached a status of independence from both the Papacy (pre-Great Schism) and Constantinople. Thus any Greek/Bulgarian/Russian influence outside of Byzantium/Bulgaria/Russia is unhistorical. Furthermore, Constantinople was captured by the Ottomans, so invincible city makes no sense.

In early history, Bulgaria went through 200 years of struggle between Christian and pre-Christian faith, which ended up with conversion. Starting with a Missionary would be unreasonable, besides, every time that I play Bulgaria, I get Orthodoxy within 3 - 5 turns anyway (and that is if I don't directly storm Adrianopolis or Constantinople, then I get it instantly). Kiev was the only country that has hard time getting to Orthodoxy and that is only if they do not establish early OB with Bulgaria and Byzantium. Don't forget that there are far more Orthodox cities in the beginning of the game.

If Poland went through similar thing, then we can remove the Catholic Missionary, but I don't see the issue with Germany. I would think it unrealistic if I were to see Orthodox Germany. Orthodox Ottomans would be a problem, but the Ottomans are not well balanced anyway.

 

[Brew]

That's what I meant, was playing a game into the 1700's and kept hoping each turn some would pop up but they never did.

Started a game as the English and during the load "The Papal Civilization has been Destroyed" showed up. Waited til i could start and went into WB. The independent civs that control Naples and Florence controlled Rome. I assume they conquered it unless Rome somehow went into civil war.

Potatoes were only used as animal feed in Europe until the 19th century and were seen as unfit for human consumption until then (other than the Irish who began cultivating them widely in the late 18th century). Either way, since the game doesn't go past 1800, I don't think there is a need for potatoes. As an Irishman though, I have always been a little dissapointed they weren't included in the original CIV4!

 

[KaiserKevin]

Potatoes were only used as animal feed in Europe until the 19th century and were seen as unfit for human consumption until then (other than the Irish who began cultivating them widely in the late 18th century). Either way, since the game doesn't go past 1800, I don't think there is a need for potatoes. As an Irishman though, I have always been a little dissapointed they weren't included in the original CIV4!

Well they're listed under several buildings and work (placed some in WB) so am still wondering what happened. If they're not gonna be placed at all might as well have another resource in its place :/ Not as concerned with being historically accurate as having it fun and playable. Potatoes are fun and playable

Read the whole shebang on faith points, think needs some balancing still. Played my first game as Arabs and in 1200ish had upwards of 120 faith points. My cities gained 1 population each turn and I was able to pump out the most expensive units in one turn, even in my most pitiful cities. I think either nerf the bonus, make it more difficult for certain civs to acquire Faith Points, or better make faith points relative to the size of the civ. Larger civs will always have more faith points due to gaining them from spreading their religion to more cities and being able to build more religious buildings. But smaller civs can and should be able to be more 'religious' than larger ones.

And I still think Orthodox need more perks. I have yet to find the additional stability or civic reduction useful due to my play style. I haven't got to get enough protestant faith points yet to see how theirs shapes up.

 

[FakeShady]

No

The game is rigged so Orthodoxy always loses. Constantinople can be captured, Rome can't. Papal favor is a factor in the game, Patriarchal favor isn't. Also Catholicism spreads way way faster, and most western civs start with a Catholic priest. Not even Bulgaria gets one of those, and Orthodoxy is part of their UHV.

Historically this is not quite accurate. It was not a foregone conclusion that places like Poland and Germany would convert to Catholicism.

Civs need to start without religions. Let Rome and Constantinople duke it out.

Actually Constantinople really needs to have all the powers the pope has, there's no reason why it shouldn't.

I understand that there is such a thing as a papacy and its a very united system, but i think he's got a point here. I know he has missed the possible perks of Orthodoxy and Protestantism but its true that Orthodoxy always loses. By 'lose', i mean its definitely got less followers end of the day than the Catholic ones. Which is not fair cos the "Schism" is supposed to be a divide, not a small bunch of people breaking away from the main body (as some religious people might want us to believe) Why? Because Rome can just pump out missionary after missionary and not care about playing the game because hey they cant get conquered and have no UHVs to do. Constantinople on the other hand has to pump out culture before 1000AD and after that pump out gold to get the 3rd UHV. Even if it doesnt it still has to pump out military stuff to fight back all the what-nots. Its not fair that Byzantium has no time to train missionaries while the Catholic Rome can do it like no tomorrow.

With the current Catholic-Orthodoxy ratio, when the schism occurs it doesnt even look like a schism at all. It looks more like Byzantium rebelling from the rest of Europe. My suggestion is that Rome has a limit to the number of missionaries they can have alive at one time. This will seriously control the crazy spread of Catholicism early on in the game.

Protestantism on the other hand has many good 'perks' due to faith points, but too few believers. Yeah some of them (SOME only, meaning what 2-3?) do convert to it during the reformation, but after that almost all return to Catholicism due to sheer overwhelming Catholic pressure from all sides. In one game i'm the only Protestant nation left, and its only because i founded it, if not i would have returned to Catholicism too.

I have no religious bias too (i hope), my only bias being to Byzantium

 

[youtien]

Going for emperor Spain. One strategy: hire all mercs (I hired 5) at spawn, all troops go to Cordoba(skip Toledo). Cordoba had 3 crossbowmen, this way I beat and collapsed Cordoba. The rest won't be too hard. Iberia is productive, plus I adopted serfdom.

 

[kochman]

Constantinople can be captured, Rome can't.

This is a valid point...
Many forces, including the Normans & the Medicci, often ran Rome in one way or another. It was at least a vassal to the Normans... and the Medicci were basically picking popes which obviously was in their favor... Many forces in Europe had significant impact.
Perhaps there can be some, and this is probably a huge thing to do and I can't really help though, mechanism for raiding Rome (receive massive gold award for looting) that also ends up in being excommunicated for a period of years? You couldn't actually take it over, but you could attack it, kill the garrison, loot... then leave...

I personally think Rome is a bit broken... that is just one idea for how to fix it.

Beyond this, I have been spawning as the Dutch a lot recently. In most of my starts, both France and Germany are already gone... Germany I understand, it was basically a bunch of independent states... but France was a HUGE power at this time. Of course, anything could happen, but perhaps at least France could be made a bit more stabile?
In these cases (several spawns where France was gone), the British had conquered the north coast of France. I don't know what came first, the crash of France based on the conquest by Britain or vice versa...

All in all, I absolutely LOVE this Mod... and I wonder if there will be any effort ever put into making a "marathon" or an "epic" version?

Also, if there is any plan to include some more nations, like the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, Romanians, Crusader Levant, Teutonic Order... I would be happy to do the XML coding (modifying the civs I have already made) for this purpose.
I would like to make a strong case for Romania as well, basically, without them, the Turks could have advance North and who knows what parts of Europe would now be Muslim, if not the whole place! I would recommend a 1400AD start or so. I would be happy to get more precise if asked.

 

[Panopticon]

Tannery is too cheap. The health cost is easily compensated by the extra hammers you get. The raw hammer cost to build it is out of line with buildings like Builder's Yard and Blacksmith that provide the same 10%+ hammers bonus.

 

[kochman]

Tannery is too cheap. The health cost is easily compensated by the extra hammers you get. The raw hammer cost to build it is out of line with buildings like Builder's Yard and Blacksmith that provide the same 10%+ hammers bonus.

I would say the hammer bonus might be too high rather than the production cost. Doesn't take much to build a Tannery... but you really don't get much out of it in the end... clothes mainly. Perhaps it should be more of a financial building than a production building?

 

[Ekolite]

Played a game as Cordoba earlier today and won the UHV. I think it was actually a little too easy, the population one was a challenge, but the wonders was easy (i had them all built by 1000ad and fullfilled both UHV conditions that turn). The challenge of the last condition is basically not to collapse. As an AI this is difficult, but a human player can easilly fight off the spanish and portugese and marginalise them. It gets very boring waiting until 1490ad though, as the best way not to collapse is basically to do nothing fun like invading portugal or expanding the empire, you just have to sit there. I think both the wonder condition and the 8 cities one should have their time limit slashed to make them more of a challenge, or possibly replace the 8 cities one with a mirror image of Spain's to put them in competition - unite the Iberian peninsula.

I also played a game as the Norse before that. Very fun game, although I didn't come close to the UHV. I settled scotland and transfered a huge number of beserkers there. The scottish barbarians were a fantastic source of xp and the English didn't stand a chance when they spawned.

In the three of four games that I've played now I've noticed that cities actually change hands via warfare extremely rarely between the AI's. I don't know why this is. Similarly, the Genoans, Venetians and Norse (and possibly the Portugese as well) don't settle the islands that they're supposed to.

Anyway, a very fun and well thought out game in general.

 

[Panopticon]

I would say the hammer bonus might be too high rather than the production cost. Doesn't take much to build a Tannery... but you really don't get much out of it in the end... clothes mainly. Perhaps it should be more of a financial building than a production building?

I think it used to have a financial bonus, in V9, but they switched it out.

Comparison: Tannery is equivalent to Blacksmith, except for composition of hammer-bonus resources and a small potential culture boost, yet costs about 30% of the construction hammers.

 

[embryodead]

Tannery should only provide a bonus for unit production. More realistic and balanced. +20% or +25% Unit Production and the cheap cost can stay the same I think.

You can't tie it to resources, but I don't think it's much of a problem. Making cows etc. prerequisite for the building like with Textile Mill makes the AI stupid, it'd value Cows and Pigs like Iron.

 

[General Toad]

Has anyone seen this before?

Once can almost TASTE the irony.

As an aside note, is Hungary fully balanced yet? As you can see on the mimi-map, they seem to be expanding even more than normal, having moved into Southern Italy. At that, their average city size is 15, much higher than the other civs.

 

[kochman]

Balancing Hungary is another reason to have to Romanians in the game...
Once again, I'd be happy to do the legwork, as I already have a civ I would just adjust. Artwork etc is perfect for this.

 

[Wessel V1]

I don't think there is any reason to weaken the Hungarians. For me the ideal situation would be that either Austria or Hungary recreates the combined empire that they created in real life. Imagine an alliance of that empire and a full-grown Ottoman empire, fighting the human player who is playing the Kievan Rus or Moscow. That would IMO be one of the ultimate wars in RFCE.

 

[Panopticon]

It's conceivable that a Reformation of sorts could have started in Rome; just not that anyone affiliated to it would have remained there for more than a year.

 

[kochman]

I don't think there is any reason to weaken the Hungarians. For me the ideal situation would be that either Austria or Hungary recreates the combined empire that they created in real life. Imagine an alliance of that empire and a full-grown Ottoman empire, fighting the human player who is playing the Kievan Rus or Moscow. That would IMO be one of the ultimate wars in RFCE.

Really the Austrians ran that empire... Hungary was more of a vassal.