RFCE 1.3 Playtest Feedback

[gilgames]

Maybe I mixed them, sorry for both of you!

 

[El Bogus]

Was it on conquest of the city, or through diplomacy?

It was upon conquest.

Yeah, cultural borders tend to change strangely sometimes
It did become normal after a couple turns (or at the first cultural threshold), right?

Yes!

Also, a little feedback about diplomacy: You can be much more careless with the choice your trading partners for two reasons. 1) AI forgives much faster (even DoWs). 2) The longer you play the game the harder it becomes to get negaive (and positive) trade relations.
Now now your friends and enemies are not decided by your actions, but by your religion and the hidden diplomatic modifier.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Maybe I mixed them, sorry for both of you!

No need to be sorry for anything, don't worry

Also, a little feedback about diplomacy: You can be much more careless with the choice your trading partners for two reasons. 1) AI forgives much faster (even DoWs). 2) The longer you play the game the harder it becomes to get negaive (and positive) trade relations.
Now now your friends and enemies are not decided by your actions, but by your religion and the hidden diplomatic modifier.

These are valid points
However it's not trivial how to balance diplomacy both in the mid and in the lategame, especially since religion was such important in the time period.
Do you have any specific ideas maybe?

 

[El Bogus]

These are valid points.
However it's not trivial how to balance diplomacy both in the mid and in the lategame, especially since religion was such important in the time period.
Do you have any specific ideas maybe?

I'm not complaining. I imagine that this more set-in-stone diplomacy is much better for the behaviour of the AI. It's just different from the normal Civ 4 BTS diplomacy.
So to give the human player a better feeling of control over the diplomatic situation you could bring back the permanent bonus of city liberation and the "you shared your technology with us" bonus. (Are there more positive permanent bonuses in Civ 4?)
Also you could make it easier to get positive trade relations in the progressing game. On a side note: Leoreth made it impossible in DoC to get easy open borders at first contact by paying 10 to 20 gold. I liked the exploit, so I didn't like that change . But as it stands, good trade relations are easy on first contact and really hard later on.
On the other hand, I really like that DoWs don't result in permanent negative diplomativ bonuses anymore. I think that's more true to history.
My suggestion is: Leave the permanent bonuses out, make trade relations easier to achieve and give all diplomatic bonuses and maluses more time to wear out.

 

[Swarbs]

I'm not complaining. I imagine that this more set-in-stone diplomacy is much better for the behaviour of the AI. It's just different from the normal Civ 4 BTS diplomacy.
So to give the human player a better feeling of control over the diplomatic situation you could bring back the permanent bonus of city liberation and the "you shared your technology with us" bonus. (Are there more positive permanent bonuses in Civ 4?)
Also you could make it easier to get positive trade relations in the progressing game. On a side note: Leoreth made it impossible in DoC to get easy open borders at first contact by paying 10 to 20 gold. I liked the exploit, so I didn't like that change . But as it stands, good trade relations are easy on first contact and really hard later on.
On the other hand, I really like that DoWs don't result in permanent negative diplomativ bonuses anymore. I think that's more true to history.
My suggestion is: Leave the permanent bonuses out, make trade relations easier to achieve and give all diplomatic bonuses and maluses more time to wear out.

Personally I would like a stronger bonus from long term peace - long term peaceful relations usually led to trade happening and resulting trade agreements. I think the bonus for peace should grow quite quickly (we are talking about several years per turn after all) and that should be enough to get trade relations and open borders, provided the religious clashes and other maluses aren't too large.

 

[gilgames]

Arabia is unplayable, I cant explain why. you must try it to see.

Ps: France is a cake-walk!

 

[AbsintheRed]

Arabia is unplayable, I cant explain why. you must try it to see.

Ps: France is a cake-walk!

Well, you should try
What's up with Arabia?

 

[AbsintheRed]

version is 1.3

Unfortunately I have no clue what makes the game quit on me (at the end of this turn/before being able to start a new turn).

It is 1.3. If this is a problem specifically for this version and no quick fix is available, then too bad for me.

I've already installed the latest SVN-version so my future problems might make better feedback. (I kept the old version and the saves around for if I get lucky and a workaround/fix is found)

Nevertheless thank you for your time and effort.

Added a fix for the earlier versions too
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=14285161#post14285161

 

[gilgames]

Well, you should try
What's up with Arabia?

I did, They have some serious stability problems, AI also tend to collapse 2-3 time till 1000AD. Try it to see with your own eyes.

 

[gilgames]

I had a good game with Spain. It was really fun. Also provided many experience about the recent changes.

- move pinch back it comes now very late (won uhvs 3/3 and didnt got it)
- AI tech toward Trading companies as hell (even better than for Astronomy)
- Colonization became a longer project, the 2 Conquest comes after 3 others, its bad.
- AI Spain is weak need boost, its ok for humans though
- Ottomans had only +21 in their hugh stack instead of +70 its good
- They also conquered Indy Moskva and Novgorod / lol / but not the middle east
- New, early tech penalty is a bit much
- Too close settling cripple France and Byzantine, nor very good for Germans
- Morocco forgot to use settlers, imo they built 2-3 during the whole game (Tangier and Fez razed by sby (not me))
- Renesains Art wonders should be split a bit too.
- Settle atlantic islands is fancy, but worthless
- Lategame growth need a serious boost, new cities cant fulfill their aim.!!!

 

[AbsintheRed]

I had a good game with Spain. It was really fun. Also provided many experience about the recent changes.

Thanks for the feedback, greatly appreciated!

- move pinch back it comes now very late (won uhvs 3/3 and didnt got it)

The problem is with the Flintlock tech, which is a weird mixture of Matchlock and Flintlock. The best would probably be too separate it to 2 techs (there was about ~150 years between the two), especially since there are already way too many things for the current single tech.
With separate techs, Pinch would go back to Flintlock.

- AI tech toward Trading companies as hell (even better than for Astronomy)

That's a good thing IMO

- Colonization became a longer project, the 2 Conquest comes after 3 others, its bad.

You mean that the Aztec and Inca conquest are not the first 2 colonial projects?
Well, only some coastal Aftican colonies might come earlier, but that only heavily depends in tech preferences.
Should Gold Coast come later in all cases?

- AI Spain is weak need boost, its ok for humans though

Yeah, the city spot for Leon will be significantly improved, it's also on my list for map updates.

- Ottomans had only +21 in their hugh stack instead of +70 its good
- They also conquered Indy Moskva and Novgorod / lol / but not the middle east
- New, early tech penalty is a bit much
- Too close settling cripple France and Byzantine, nor very good for Germans
- Morocco forgot to use settlers, imo they built 2-3 during the whole game (Tangier and Fez razed by sby (not me))

Will try to look look for these in my testgames.
Didn't really experience any of the problems myself.

- Renesains Art wonders should be split a bit too.

Maybe. But that is meant to be a wonder tech.
I think it's more important to rebalance wonders, some of them are way too overpowered currently.

- Settle atlantic islands is fancy, but worthless

Flavour and roleplaying are very important aspects of the mod. Well, most RFC mods. Maybe I can even say most Civ games
There were some opinions about removing those Islands for example, but it's great that we have options like this IMO, even though it's mostly for the human player.

- Lategame growth need a serious boost, new cities cant fulfill their aim.!!!

Would need a new mechanics, not really interested in this.
Also, don't find it that historic either. There were probably some rare occasions where it happened, sure.
But city growth wasn't that much faster in the 16-17th century than in the 11-12th for example.

 

[DC123456789]

You mean that the Aztec and Inca conquest are not the first 2 colonial projects?
Well, only some coastal Aftican colonies might come earlier, but that only heavily depends in tech preferences.
Should Gold Coast come later in all cases?

The Portuguese Gold Coast was colonized at around the same time, but most of the others seem to be later, 17th century colonies.

 

[Force44]

Hurray for the fix! Thank you.

Recently I played a game as Burgundy where I tried to switch to Aragon but that was not possible (Portugal spawned earlier but was possible) Is that intentional?

 

[citis]

I think it's more important to rebalance wonders, some of them are way too overpowered currently.

Speaking of that, consider the effects of the wonder "free walls and castle in conquered cities". It solves both the stability problem as long as the "keep the conquered cities" problem.

 

[Titoudeff]

Regarding the recent changes, I like the tech requirements change for wonders, it makes more sense overall now.

However, with the colonies tech requirement change, most colonies are coming too late IMO, especially the ones that are supposed to be early like the american conquests and the african/indian trading post.
Conquests need Fintlock while this tech was founded in the 17th century and comes late in game, same with the indian trading post with Polygonal Fort.

Also I really don't like the indy cities random spawning, the randomness during battle is annoying enough already so why would you do the same with indy cities spawning? AI city placement is already completely random and pretty bad most of the time.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Speaking of that, consider the effects of the wonder "free walls and castle in conquered cities". It solves both the stability problem as long as the "keep the conquered cities" problem.

Sry, I'm not entirely sure what do you mean with this post.
Do you find the Chevalier wonder overpowered?
While it's powerful, I don't find it gamebreaking at all. But wouldn't even have any ideas how to change it even if it were.
It's just way too unique Which is great iMO.

Regarding the recent changes, I like the tech requirements change for wonders, it makes more sense overall now.

Yeah, thanks.
I also think it's a step in the right direction.

However, with the colonies tech requirement change, most colonies are coming too late IMO, especially the ones that are supposed to be early like the american conquests and the african/indian trading post.
Conquests need Fintlock while this tech was founded in the 17th century and comes late in game, same with the indian trading post with Polygonal Fort.

While I agree, it's hard to find a perfect position for all colonial projects.
I myself dislike quite a few things in the current setup, so plan to improve it further.
For example I'm more and more inclined, to separate Matchlock and Flintlock.
The new tech would solve many things, not only those colonies position.
My current plan is something like this:
Match, ~1500: Janissary UU, Tercio UU, Topkapi Palace, Aztec and Inca Conquest, obsoletes Archery Range
Flint, ~1620: Musketman, Musketeer UU, Karolin UU, Pinch promotion, Pistolier, 1-2 colonies

But I guess if I get into this, some other changes on the tech tree are also needed
So not yet sure if I should start on this too.

Also I really don't like the indy cities random spawning, the randomness during battle is annoying enough already so why would you do the same with indy cities spawning? AI city placement is already completely random and pretty bad most of the time.

In all cases I tried to choose new positions which won't restrict the AI (or the human player) too much.
Actually in some cases the new sites even do good for AI city placement, allowing better cities overally.

 

[gilgames]

I like the random city stuff, dont remove rimini just change it ti siena! And move the two conquest colony to astronomy.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I like the random city stuff, dont remove rimini just change it ti siena! And move the two conquest colony to astronomy.

Astronomy is already full.
For 1.4 they will be at Chemistry.

Siena would not be a good spot for gameplay.
And I guess 3 possible cities are enough there.

 

[gilgames]

Imo Siena is the best city spot for Tuscany in terms of gameplay/overlap/bfc ect....

 

[AbsintheRed]

Imo Siena is the best city spot for Tuscany in terms of gameplay/overlap/bfc ect....

Still disagree.
But even if it were, the other cities were far more important/significant in 500AD AFAIK.