(RFC3E) Welcome to RFCEurope Enhanced Edition

[gilgames]

So after a week of de-rusting myself. Got a game going as France. The first uhv was really close, but in a financial sense. Lucky me, Augsburg wasn't that hardly defended so I could dismiss a few swords and everyone paid some tribute to maintain the economy. Then markets came online and from there it was ridiculously op. Crushed burgundy before they got walls, and a little bit of Germany. They still alive but barely functioning. From 1000ad built all wonders and only lost to mount st Michael to a swedish engineer. It's currently 1350. I wasn't below+80% in tech ever. And I can already research paper in 12 turns. So idk how but their late game could use some tune down. Gonna attach some saves later when I get home.

just look at the last save....and compare it to others...

 

[HNation]

The current map is 100x73. What size are you considering?

I think 135x180 might be better. Perhaps 150x200 is a little excessive.

 

[HNation]

Here is what the 135x180 map would look like

 

[HNation]

@voigt I have had success using mapview to turn the photo into a map. Obviously, some areas need a touchup, and resources and rivers need to be placed, but I think this looks pretty good for a start.

 

[voigt]

@HNation Interesting stuff! This looks like a pretty good start indeed!
But I'm concern about the management of territories and cities. With such a big map, it would difficult to mimic some historical territories (Ottoman empire for instance).
Maybe a smaller map would be a better fit. What do you think about something like 110x146 (compare to the current 73x100 map)?
I've attached some screenshots of the map.

Spoiler screenshots :

 

[gilgames]

But if you make a new map, you have to make a new city name map for all civ! That's a very hefty work.

 

[HNation]

@HNation Interesting stuff! This looks like a pretty good start indeed!
But I'm concern about the management of territories and cities. With such a big map, it would difficult to mimic some historical territories (Ottoman empire for instance).
Maybe a smaller map would be a better fit. What do you think about something like 110x146 (compare to the current 73x100 map)?
I've attached some screenshots of the map.

Spoiler screenshots :

View attachment 693242View attachment 693243View attachment 693244View attachment 693245View attachment 693246View attachment 693247

120 x 160 might be a good compromise

Alternatively, the current size could work, but if the minimum distance between cities was increased from 1 tile in between to 2.

 

[HNation]

Just for fun, here's a 192x256 Europe map

 

[gilgames]

So I never was good with arabia, but tried it yesterday and it was horrible. If you get to -1 stability core cities can leave in an instant. Your army is so far, no way to get it back. you are very limited on time, meaning there is no time to build up the manor houses (i tried that too) and fulfill the UHV. If I do what I have to, somebody will go indi, if I build stability, I wont have the stuff ready by 850. An its so easy to get in a negative spiral. So give me some ideas how to deal with it (besides the ctrl+w)

Another issue I found is germany. If you dont kick ass in the west, you get outmatched. If you kick down burgundy and france, you dont realy have competioin and balance. And again, I hate when i have to destroy a nation in order to thrive.

 

[voigt]

So I never was good with arabia, but tried it yesterday and it was horrible. If you get to -1 stability core cities can leave in an instant. Your army is so far, no way to get it back. you are very limited on time, meaning there is no time to build up the manor houses (i tried that too) and fulfill the UHV. If I do what I have to, somebody will go indi, if I build stability, I wont have the stuff ready by 850. An its so easy to get in a negative spiral. So give me some ideas how to deal with it (besides the ctrl+w)

Another issue I found is germany. If you dont kick ass in the west, you get outmatched. If you kick down burgundy and france, you dont realy have competioin and balance. And again, I hate when i have to destroy a nation in order to thrive.

I agree with you. I'll reimplement the stability components as in RFC DOC, I found there was much less variance. In RFC DOC, when a civilization stability reaches the collapse state, we know the end is near.

 

[manio curio]

So I never was good with arabia, but tried it yesterday and it was horrible. If you get to -1 stability core cities can leave in an instant. Your army is so far, no way to get it back. you are very limited on time, meaning there is no time to build up the manor houses (i tried that too) and fulfill the UHV. If I do what I have to, somebody will go indi, if I build stability, I wont have the stuff ready by 850. An its so easy to get in a negative spiral. So give me some ideas how to deal with it (besides the ctrl+w)

Another issue I found is germany. If you dont kick ass in the west, you get outmatched. If you kick down burgundy and france, you dont realy have competioin and balance. And again, I hate when i have to destroy a nation in order to thrive.

could you be a little bit more specific about the issues with Germany? I played quite a few times and never noticed any issues

 

[gilgames]

could you be a little bit more specific about the issues with Germany? I played quite a few times and never noticed any issues

Of course. So you either crush/stomp burgundy and france both, and thuis without competition yu can thrive, but i dont like doing that. If you dont, then one of them gonna dominate the west side and kill you. In my recent game Burgundy was bigger and took all my italian cities so i quit before they storm my capitol too. I just did not had the production to compete. I was more focused on uhv and optimal city placment than actual domination. So again, If you dont crush them early on, they gonne be a serious problem later.

Side note: @voigt Can you please make Augsburg a random spot? as Berlin/Brandenburg is. There in the south a few tile left and righ matters a lot, and would love to see some variation about it.

 

[voigt]

@gilgames of course! I plan to add randomness to the spawn of barbs/indies cities in the future

 

[manio curio]

Of course. So you either crush/stomp burgundy and france both, and thuis without competition yu can thrive, but i dont like doing that. If you dont, then one of them gonna dominate the west side and kill you. In my recent game Burgundy was bigger and took all my italian cities so i quit before they storm my capitol too. I just did not had the production to compete. I was more focused on uhv and optimal city placment than actual domination. So again, If you dont crush them early on, they gonne be a serious problem later.

Side note: @voigt Can you please make Augsburg a random spot? as Berlin/Brandenburg is. There in the south a few tile left and righ matters a lot, and would love to see some variation about it.

to complete the first UHV you really only need to control Lorraine and Swabia on the border with France and Burgundy. I usually settle Freiburg im Breisgau and Aachen and the trick will work, without firing a single shot. After you accomplish the first UHV you will need to build some type of economy to allow for a decent scientific research rate. I usually alternate building one building (manor houses, rathauses and markets ) and then one unit to prevent being successfully attacked by France or Burgundy. The latter did attack me the last I played but I easily repelled them. The only cases where either France or Burgundy can be a serious threat is if one of them successfully eliminates the other, but that almost never happens. If it does you can easily pick up some of the losers spoils. Picardy or Champagne if France is the loser or part of Burgundy if Burgundy itself as a faction loses. What you described, aka 'one of them gonna dominate the west side and kill you' happened to me once because I did not keep training units after the first UHV and I focused too much on building manor houses, markets and so on. Maybe that happened to you too? Also what do you mean by optimal city placement? I am just trying to understand the problem in detail.

 

[gilgames]

to complete the first UHV you really only need to control Lorraine and Swabia on the border with France and Burgundy. I usually settle Freiburg im Breisgau and Aachen and the trick will work, without firing a single shot. After you accomplish the first UHV you will need to build some type of economy to allow for a decent scientific research rate. I usually alternate building one building (manor houses, rathauses and markets ) and then one unit to prevent being successfully attacked by France or Burgundy. The latter did attack me the last I played but I easily repelled them. The only cases where either France or Burgundy can be a serious threat is if one of them successfully eliminates the other, but that almost never happens. If it does you can easily pick up some of the losers spoils. Picardy or Champagne if France is the loser or part of Burgundy if Burgundy itself as a faction loses. What you described, aka 'one of them gonna dominate the west side and kill you' happened to me once because I did not keep training units after the first UHV and I focused too much on building manor houses, markets and so on. Maybe that happened to you too? Also what do you mean by optimal city placement? I am just trying to understand the problem in detail.

My argument is, you shouldn't always build Freiborg am B to be successful. In that run I made a city in Flandres instead. I know in general how to do it, did many times before. In my experience France vs Burgundy then often cannibalize each other. not fully, but to an extent that they can dominate. Maybe I should experiment more before saying a judgment, who knows.

City placement: I think its fairly ovbious. One of my fav mini game within a run is to find the most optimal placement for my cities. Meaning the least overlap and the most coverage. Lucky me, the random indy cities helping me with that. But in that practicular run i had to raise Lubeck bc it was too close to Brandenburg. Thats abviously a big drawback, but I should have been fine. And if you just take it and be as is, you stuck with that. Back then we had a test version where you raise a city and get back a settler unit. What you guys think about that? Either in the first 50/random number in the civ life or to a certain date or to a certain city size. Clearly doesn't make sense if you raze Paris being 12 pop.

 

[manio curio]

My argument is, you shouldn't always build Freiborg am B to be successful. In that run I made a city in Flandres instead. I know in general how to do it, did many times before. In my experience France vs Burgundy then often cannibalize each other. not fully, but to an extent that they can dominate. Maybe I should experiment more before saying a judgment, who knows.

City placement: I think its fairly ovbious. One of my fav mini game within a run is to find the most optimal placement for my cities. Meaning the least overlap and the most coverage. Lucky me, the random indy cities helping me with that. But in that practicular run i had to raise Lubeck bc it was too close to Brandenburg. Thats abviously a big drawback, but I should have been fine. And if you just take it and be as is, you stuck with that. Back then we had a test version where you raise a city and get back a settler unit. What you guys think about that? Either in the first 50/random number in the civ life or to a certain date or to a certain city size. Clearly doesn't make sense if you raze Paris being 12 pop.

I believe in civ 2 you could disband a city at any point, I like the idea you suggested. Maybe it is me @gilgames, but I do not really understand your complaints about the Germany game.

 

[gilgames]

I believe in civ 2 you could disband a city at any point, I like the idea you suggested. Maybe it is me @gilgames, but I do not really understand your complaints about the Germany game.

Ok, let me try a few more times, than I'll get back on it.

 

[gilgames]

I believe in civ 2 you could disband a city at any point, I like the idea you suggested. Maybe it is me @gilgames, but I do not really understand your complaints about the Germany game.

thats my problem. Im a lot stronger this time, but burgundy is dead, i dont like that. a war against french also ineviatable. All that bc i dont settle F-am-B city. Just feels stupid.

 

[manio curio]

thats my problem. Im a lot stronger this time, but burgundy is dead, i dont like that. a war against french also ineviatable. All that bc i dont settle F-am-B city. Just feels stupid.

I settle Freiburg im Breisgau to prevent Burgundy to settle on a tile within Swabia and therefore force me to declare them war, the other reason is to allow for my troops to get to Italy without the need for a right of passage deal with Burgundy, which somehow never grants me, but it seems like you managed to keep control of Swabia and invade Italy anyways, kudos to you, once burgundy blocked my path to italy by settling in switzerland and I had to build a road from munchen to venice and get right of passage with the venetians to get italy!! You are right in your case war with France is inevitable, but so it is against Austria and Poland to accomplish the third UHV. Which will force you to eliminate Austria for sure since you need their whole core area. To me it seems inevitable at times to eliminate opposing players, but it is simply my opinion. Did Burgundy attack you in that game? If I may provide some input I feel like you spread out your cities a little bit too much. It allows you to build Hamburg and have some variation in the cities location, which I find neat but it does affect your production. Now that I see your game I finally get the complaint on being forced to build cities always in the same tile, it would be nice to shake things out

 

[gilgames]

I settle Freiburg im Breisgau to prevent Burgundy to settle on a tile within Swabia and therefore force me to declare them war, the other reason is to allow for my troops to get to Italy without the need for a right of passage deal with Burgundy, which somehow never grants me, but it seems like you managed to keep control of Swabia and invade Italy anyways, kudos to you, once burgundy blocked my path to italy by settling in switzerland and I had to build a road from munchen to venice and get right of passage with the venetians to get italy!! You are right in your case war with France is inevitable, but so it is against Austria and Poland to accomplish the third UHV. Which will force you to eliminate Austria for sure since you need their whole core area. To me it seems inevitable at times to eliminate opposing players, but it is simply my opinion. Did Burgundy attack you in that game? If I may provide some input I feel like you spread out your cities a little bit too much. It allows you to build Hamburg and have some variation in the cities location, which I find neat but it does affect your production. Now that I see your game I finally get the complaint on being forced to build cities always in the same tile, it would be nice to shake things out

No, France was waging war on B so I jumped in, razed Díjon and then they collapsed. They founder Bale late, so didn't needed open border with them.
There is a giant difference between killing nations and killing Austria. Bc the later is the scourge of europe.I don't feel any remorse doin it. Poland can survive quite a conquest, so they are fine.