Ah, I see. That's a tough one - you could call it a feudal manor as most of the villages had a manor at the centre, but then that could create confusion with manor houses.
So possibly a feudal hall, as many of the manors in England have the suffix -hall.
Artisans village or Craftsmen village is what I get when I ask google translate for the english translation of the dutch word (ambachtsliedendorp) for what you are trying to describe.
Still has the village noun in it though. And I am not sure if it is proper english since gt does not recognize the dutch word as one word.
Now you won't hear me complain about the free units I can use to defend Constantinople whilst that city is on the brink of being overrun by barbarians...
But I was supposed to be elected leader of a crusade _near Jerusalem .
Now you won't hear me complain about the free units I can use to defend Constantinople whilst that city is on the brink of being overrun by barbarians...
But I was supposed to be elected leader of a crusade _near Jerusalem .
That's because the army didn't find a valid plot near Jerusalem.
I guess it became independent recently?
So you were originally supposed to fight against Arabia, now you have no valid target
@force44
Do you have a savegame from the previous turn? Maybe from the turn before that?
There are some safeguards in the code for situations where there is an ownership change in the target. This must have happened on the very same turn when your units should have arrived.
I didn't know if the event was a bug (unintended effect) or feature (intended effect)
I recall a message similar to: "Our ships were swept of course by a vicious storm. Surviving troops washed ashore." From playing this mod some time ago. A message like that would be really fitting for the event the game can't find a suitable plot for the crusaders near Jerusalem.
I didn't know if the event was a bug (unintended effect) or feature (intended effect)
I recall a message similar to: "Our ships were swept of course by a vicious storm. Surviving troops washed ashore." From playing this mod some time ago. A message like that would be really fitting for the event the game can't find a suitable plot for the crusaders near Jerusalem.
Thanks for the saves!
It's not intentional, so I consider it a bug
Also there was no such message in RFCE, maybe it was another mod?
EDIT: well it's not reproducable with the saves.
As I thought, you got into the very rare situation when your target city declared independence on the very same AI turn the crusading army would have arrived.
With the save Jerusalem doesn't declare it's independence.
Anyway, you already declared war on the Arabs, and while you should have declared war no the indies as well, something prevents the game from it.
Will try to look into it, but first I have to reach a similar a situation in WB somehow.
I tried your save too, a huge stack of crusaders arrive promptly. The defense of Konstantinapolis is easy, but eastern part will be pillaged for sure, use mercenaries. Also building fort within cultural borders, won't provide resources, you need plate armor and chop forest + road for that.
Barbs appear due to you crippled Byzanc, they should hold back the seljuks.
I didn't know if the event was a bug (unintended effect) or feature (intended effect)
I recall a message similar to: "Our ships were swept of course by a vicious storm. Surviving troops washed ashore." From playing this mod some time ago. A message like that would be really fitting for the event the game can't find a suitable plot for the crusaders near Jerusalem.
Well, after some testing it turns out that your units did arrive near Jerusalem.
But right after that, in the same AI turn the city declared independence, you wasn't at war with the new owner, thus your units were moved away from that civ's territory.
If the ownership would have happened a turn earlier, or just earlier in the AI turn, your arriving army would have declared war on the indy civ as well.
But in this strange situation it's not possible. I have no idea how to improve it.
(other then further decreasing the chance for city secession in core territory, but we already talked about that in one of the other threads)
It seems to me the bug is not gamebreaking and too rare to warrant a pop up message. A good thing, if not only because I think my phrasing of ships being blown off course is better rephrased.
That is unless the crusaders arriving on a spot different than their intended destination becomes a valid possibility (for the mod), it happened in 'real' history.
I tried your save too, a huge stack of crusaders arrive promptly. The defense of Konstantinapolis is easy, but eastern part will be pillaged for sure, use mercenaries. Also building fort within cultural borders, won't provide resources, you need plate armor and chop forest + road for that.
Barbs appear due to you crippled Byzanc, they should hold back the seljuks.
Something curious I've noticed since a while back (might have been as far back as SVN versions after 1.2): Have AI civs become much more aggressive in taking independent cities? It seems as if they don't care much for political maps when choosing which independent cities to take. In a recent couple of games I've seen England take Mallorca and Spain taking the remains of a collapsed Hungary. Is this intended?
Maybe it has always been this way, and it's only more noticable with the recent stability changes (since civs collapse more easily now, if I recall correctly)?
It seems to me the bug is not gamebreaking and too rare to warrant a pop up message. A good thing, if not only because I think my phrasing of ships being blown off course is better rephrased.
That is unless the crusaders arriving on a spot different than their intended destination becomes a valid possibility (for the mod), it happened in 'real' history.
I couldn't really add a popup for this even if I wanted to.
Cultural pushes are handled in the dll, entirely separately from any code connected to the Crusades.
Are you sure? I could swear Cluny finished sooner after the fort I built on the stone came within my borders
I figured 4 crossbowmen would make a pretty formidable obstacle but when I spotted what I was up against I wasn't so sure any more.
Something curious I've noticed since a while back (might have been as far back as SVN versions after 1.2): Have AI civs become much more aggressive in taking independent cities? It seems as if they don't care much for political maps when choosing which independent cities to take. In a recent couple of games I've seen England take Mallorca and Spain taking the remains of a collapsed Hungary. Is this intended?
Maybe it has always been this way, and it's only more noticable with the recent stability changes (since civs collapse more easily now, if I recall correctly)?
It's somewhat of a dilemma.
Changed it recently, probably 1-2 months ago.
Previously the AI was forbidden to go for any indy or barb cities outside it's war map.
I find that a way too hardcoded barrier for it. While it resulted in the AI never going for too faraway cities, it also meant that it cannot take a poorly defended city literally on it's border if it was 1 tile further than it's war map.
When I changed it I made a lot of tweaks in the AI, tried to make it that faraway cities are always a very unlikely target.
Still, if it has no other targets, far conquest examples like the ones you posted can happen
And actually I don't think that's a bad thing (if that's not it's general behaviour in most situations)
I guess I will try to adjust some of the AI behaviour even further, but it's welcomed if the AI expands in some unexpected ways in some of the games.
Possibly, but it requires a lot of recoding, and it would surely need a lot of iterations.
I'm a little afraid that constantly checking the borders of all AI civs would be very demanding for good ol' civ.
Not sure about the exact amount, but I'm rather reluctant to go this way
Instead tweaked the values once again, I'm curious whether it's better or not.
Thanks, it was already reported.
Rules for DCN names with master relations were messed up in the .dll
Already fixed it a couple days ago, so will be up with my next commit.
I am playing with the latest SVN version. AFAIK that is already 1.4. Should the name of this thread be changed from RFCE 1.3 Playtest Feedback to the more generalRFCE Playtest feedback? Or should a new thread amply named RFCE 1.4 Playtest Feedback be started?
~barbarian Ireland~
Playing as Scotland the barbarian Ireland is a boon. Pillaging all those improvements supplies enough cash to research an entire tech, the barbarian units provide a nice xp farm and (especially with the bonus of disappearing barbarian units) it is less of a hassle (costs less shields) to capture the cities (and with some luck they will even have some buildings left) than to build settlers.
At the moment there are 4 permanent barb cities in Ireland. Having 3 of them in shiting locations (appearing and disappearing) would probably be something I would find aesthetically pleasing.
~different possible locations for independent (and barbarian?) cities~
I just really like this. For me the decrease in agency (plannability aspect) is offset by the increased reward for exploring.
~unclear formulation 2nd UHV-condition Moors~
The Maranids.
Have 5000 culture in each of 3 cities.
It is unclear if this states to have at least 5000 culture in at least 3 different cities or if this states to have at least 5000 culture in a number of cities one third the total number of your cities.
I am playing with the latest SVN version. AFAIK that is already 1.4. Should the name of this thread be changed from RFCE 1.3 Playtest Feedback to the more generalRFCE Playtest feedback? Or should a new thread amply named RFCE 1.4 Playtest Feedback be started?
Finally, there was already an 1.3 thread when this one was created, so it was rather redundant.
IMO it's enough to have the general feedback thread and a single thread for the latest version.
But this is a minor thing actually, I don't mind if we use multiple threads.
The Maranids.
Have 5000 culture in each of 3 cities.
It is unclear if this states to have at least 5000 culture in at least 3 different cities or if this states to have at least 5000 culture in a number of cities one third the total number of your cities.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
