RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread

[Wessel V1]

@The Turk and @Wessel V1

@Wessel V1
-Constantinople never gets conquered in games not because Turkey is not capable of it, they just dont want to.
-Yes Turkey AI should be able to conquer Constantinople in some games, but to ask that Turkey beat them on spawn... or The Turk's suggestion that they should do it 9/10, thats unfair now isn't it?
-Yes a solution is needed for the "Turkey AI never gets Constantinople" problem, but a solution is also needed for the "Turkey Human player gets to OWN" problem. Yes THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT POINT in my opinion.

- Not wanting to and not being capable are kind of the same in AI terms. The AI wants to, but is afraid of the massive job it has to do.
- I see no clear post that says Turkey should beat them on spawn. Also, there is a difference between possible to beat them on spawn and beat them on spawn. It is necessary to see this difference. The AI is not scripted to show the same behaviour in nearly the same situation. Once Constantinople is weakened enough to be conquerable, there is a certain amount of time needed to do the job. So, if Constantinople has less defensive bonusses in, say, 1400, that does not mean the Constantinople becomes Istanbul in 1405, but rather 1430 or 1460. Still, nobody said that the Turks should be able to conquer Constantinople straight away.
- To be honest I don't fully understand your critique on this point, which is most likely due to my lack of knowledge of the English language. Still, I don't see what would be the trouble. The human player, whether he is Byzantium or Turkey, can hold / take Constantinople without much pain, because he is far more intelligent than the AI is at this point. Also, and I will repeat, I think that the unit production rate for Turkey should be lowered when there is a fine solution for Istanbul. The AI sucks at ferrying units, so the actual power increases quite a lot more than the single city of Istanbul.

 

[Wessel V1]

The Turk: Like JediClement and others have pointed out. Theodosian wall is obsolete against gunpowder. But that doesnt really matter when you think about it. What gunpowder units are strong enough to conquer the city? A fortified city defender longbowman on hills behind river is far stronger than any arqebusier or musketman.

If Constantinopel is made weaker in any way, so does the Ottomans too.

Otherwise I like the islam/christian clash in this game. It should be a challenge!

True, Longbowmen are far better in defending than any available gunpowder unit. I think I'm starting to understand why the hill should be removed in addition to the Theodosian Walls. Unfortunately, defensive bonusses don't expire when the wonder gets obsolete, so basically it does not obsolete. I think it is possible to change that, but I don't know how to.

 

[Zipzapzup]

Well the easiest way would be simply to remove the Theodosian Walls on turk spawn by an event like the random events in BTS or by script. You can make the Theodosian Walls require the orthodox Holy city, so its not build anywhere again and make it obsolete with a tech Byzanz normally has around 1300 so Byzanz can't build it again. Well you would lose +2 and +6 in Byzanz but i think thats ok for a city which should be conquered (love those civ smilies ).

But the question is, what use has the Theodosian Walls anyway if it doesn't defend Constantinople against the Turks? Constantinople is rarly attacked, sometimes by crusades but not very often. So why do we even have this wonder? Only because of historical reasons? Well you are making a scenario here and no historical simulation?

Edit: About the Espionage you can actually support a city revolt in Constaninople. When you support a city revolt the defense bonus is gone for 1 or 2 turns, depends on the city. You can try that on your own, works quite fine but the AI isn't capable of doing things like that i guess.

 

[Barak]

I posted yesterday and no one gave me an answer... Can only catholic nations built the Knights? If so, shouldn't there be a corporation to compete against them from the Orthodox Civs?

 

[kochman]

So please instead of trying to have a historical argument with me, please give me one reason why we should allow Byzantium to stay ""uncollapsed", when it ONLY controls ONE city (Constantinople).

One good reason... OK, history.
It didn't collapse, even when down to one city, until conquered by force of arms.

Getting rid of the Theodosian Walls, or even obsoleting their defensive bonus is silly.
The problem is, as many have noted, in AI hands, the Turks don't have the bravery to tackle Constantinople because of the effort it takes.

If we consider that it took them hundreds of years to do this... it seems kind of realistic.

Perhaps there is a code out there that would not allow the Turks to take the Byzantines as a vassal? Something like "always war" between the two?
In normal RFC, no one can ever make piece with the Byzantines, and therefore they always go down.
The Turks will want to conquer Constantinople then, or die trying...

 

[Issos]

Ok, i've got just one fear.

When i will play Ottomans, i want capturing of Constantinopole being challanging, involving much effort. Please, don't make it pice of cake, because it wasn't one, and it will provide no fun then.

ps. if anyone gives me reason to criticise, i do so

 

[Wessel V1]

To be honest I don't find it so hard because the AI can never send new forces fast enough or rebuild it's defenses. Even if you'd siege 10% off each turn, it will take some time, but in the end you'll destroy the city's defense. The turn after that the siege units can be used to do some collateral damage. Knights will kill anything that is left.

So, what will change, is that the conquest will go quicker. However, it won't take less skills.

 

[AOS9001]

I posted yesterday and no one gave me an answer... Can only catholic nations built the Knights? If so, shouldn't there be a corporation to compete against them from the Orthodox Civs?

No, all Civs can build knights if they have horses and iron, and the right tech.

If you mean the special knights you can make with the Crusader-order corporations, anyone I think can found those. I know I've founded Knights Templar on Catholic and Orthodox civilizations.

 

[Barak]

No, all Civs can build knights if they have horses and iron, and the right tech.

If you mean the special knights you can make with the Crusader-order corporations, anyone I think can found those. I know I've founded Knights Templar on Catholic and Orthodox civilizations.

I was unable to found the knightly corporations until I converted to Catholisism. Not that big of a deal, it was the Medici banks I wanted more anyway.

 

[AOS9001]

I was unable to found the knightly corporations until I converted to Catholisism. Not that big of a deal, it was the Medici banks I wanted more anyway.

Well, that's suspicious. Maybe something changed on the last patch.

 

[Wessel V1]

I believe that the Crusader corps can only be found with Catholicism. If I wouldn't lose faith points, I think I'd actually switch for a few turns.

 

[TheCzech]

There is one thing to say: Prague as an independant city should be named "Praha". If it is independant and not under the Holy Roman Empire or Austrian Empire the language would be Czech? It's a minor fix right?

EDIT: even under German or Austrian rule, the language was always Czech.

 

[kochman]

There is one thing to say: Prague as an independant city should be named "Praha". If it is independant and not under the Holy Roman Empire or Austrian Empire the language would be Czech? It's a minor fix right?

EDIT: even under German or Austrian rule, the language was always Czech.

This is the czech name for it, sure...
And no one elses.

I don't know if they get that in depth with city names though... seems like a lot of effort for little pay off.

 

[micbic]

AFAIK, Prague flourished as a city of the HRE. AFAIK as well, the ancient settlement name was Zavist. For some reason, I would prefer to go with it.
(I confess, the only reason I returned is defending city names )

 

[TheCzech]

I just notice how certain city names are changed under the different empires and their languages, so if if the independant city is to represent the czech kingdom before HRE rule than it should atleast have the proper translation.

the ancient settlement name was Zavist.

I think that name would be too early. By 500 AD the Slavs were already in that area. Zavist is the celtic name for it.

 

[Allan79]

Hey. I have been away from RFCE for a while. So I was excited to play it again. I have made a few observations. I don't know if these are things you already have discussed earlier.
I decided to play Cordoba. I was surprised to learn how easy it was to kill of the Spanish. I didn't attack straight away but still. Is it suppose to be that easy?

Also, having Cordoba the biggest city in 1000. I thought it should be bigger than Constantinople. I achieved this UHV despite both cities were size 12.

Later in game both the Germans and the Hungarians offered them self as vassals. Is this typical, cause I was a bit surprised but I accepted of course.

Burgundy is vassals of the Norse and they are called New Bornholm. Where did this name derive from? You now that its the name of an island in Denmark? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bornholm

 

[micbic]

I just notice how certain city names are changed under the different empires and their languages, so if if the independant city is to represent the czech kingdom before HRE rule than it should atleast have the proper translation.



I think that name would be too early. By 500 AD the Slavs were already in that area. Zavist is the celtic name for it.

You are right in this, Praha is preferred from Prague (BTW was this the name in Czech 10 centuries ago?). About Zavist....well, I suppose you are right. Yet, Prague would have to spawn around 800-900 AD.

 

[AdrienIer]

Allan79, indeed there is a problem with Iberia in general : whether you take Spain or Cordoba it is incredibly easy to destroy the other and take over the whole peninsula which is sooooo rich.
The problem, I think, is that in most situations you have multiple enemies in a small land, whether in Iberia you are alone against one AI, and it is very normal that you beat it easily. So usually (even when the human player controls neither of them) Spain or Cordoba beats the other at one point, Portugal is always useless because it builds too many cities in a small area and Iberia becomes a boring place. I think the modders have reduced the number of resources but we are waiting for the next release.

The automatic vassalization is another recurrent problem. It would be OK if Portugal vassalized to Spain or Cordoba if they got really strong, but most of the time it's just a far away civ that vassalises because of your own greatness. The problem is that in normal civilization the vassalization rate was very low, and it was higher in RFC. In RFCE there are too many vassals because the tech rate is way too fast, so the newly born civs are usually far behind and want to vassalize. This might be corrected in the next release with changes in tech rate.

 

[AOS9001]

In relation to the tech rate, on Viceroy I can get Professional Army by 1300, but on Monarch, I'm usually still at Drama, or a tech before it. So it does slow down to more realistic levels on the next bar of difficulty, that's good.

@Iberia: Whoever controls the majority is going to come out extremely strong. For humans playing Cordoba, taking out Spain and Portugal is easy. For humans playing Spain, taking out Cordoba and Portugal is easy. So those two will always come out very strong under human players.

 

[The Immortal]

Plz help! What can I do to improve my stability? I only have pluses in expansion=((( It seems to me that I don't understand stability conception...