RFCEurope 1.1

[civ_king]

Playing as the Norse, I realized a few things things:

1) the Vinland goal is really gimmicky and not very interesting. If it were about settling Vinland with a real unit settler and then manage to keep the city, maybe. As it is now, it's about completing a colony project no one else risks completing before you. And you have to settle a crappy city in Iceland.

2) the conquest UHV is too deterministic. Why *these* areas? Why not just ask for a number of coastal cities to be conquered? This would allow for a more freeform way of completing this goal.

2) The uniques are really lacking: the UA is basically only a way to complete the Vinland goal. It's only other use is to shorten the path to the British Islands. While useful, this is underwhelming; the UB is a free promotion... +1 movement on sea. The Berserker is a great UU however.

3) The Norse could as well be called the Vikings as they have nothing representing their later history as Denmark and Norway. There isn't even any conflict with Sweden.

I'd suggest scrapping UHV #1, the UA and the UB. For the UA, perhaps the +1 movement for ships from the UB. On top of that, either Amphibious for all melee units or a bonus yield for the terrible terrain in scotland and norway.

I can't suggest anything yet re: UHV and UB besides that these be more of the Denmark era.

In real life it would be impossible to colonise Vinland without Iceland

 

[merijn_v1]

Playing as the Norse, I realized a few things things:

1) the Vinland goal is really gimmicky and not very interesting. If it were about settling Vinland with a real unit settler and then manage to keep the city, maybe. As it is now, it's about completing a colony project no one else risks completing before you. And you have to settle a crappy city in Iceland.

2) the conquest UHV is too deterministic. Why *these* areas? Why not just ask for a number of coastal cities to be conquered? This would allow for a more freeform way of completing this goal.

2) The uniques are really lacking: the UA is basically only a way to complete the Vinland goal. It's only other use is to shorten the path to the British Islands. While useful, this is underwhelming; the UB is a free promotion... +1 movement on sea. The Berserker is a great UU however.

3) The Norse could as well be called the Vikings as they have nothing representing their later history as Denmark and Norway. There isn't even any conflict with Sweden.

I'd suggest scrapping UHV #1, the UA and the UB. For the UA, perhaps the +1 movement for ships from the UB. On top of that, either Amphibious for all melee units or a bonus yield for the terrible terrain in scotland and norway.

I can't suggest anything yet re: UHV and UB besides that these be more of the Denmark era.

We do want to represent the Viking expension to the Americas somehow and this is the best option to do so.

2. It would certainly give the player a lot more freedom. But I think it would also make the UHV a lot easier and less challeging. And these areas are historically controlled by the Vikings. (not that the conquering coastal cities isn't historical)

3. Not all UP should be strong. It might not be strong, it's certainly useful. As you said it's necessary of their Vinland goal and it creates some shortcut. They also provide some safe territory to heal your ships by preventing them to be attacked. (useful for their 3rd UHV) And as the movement is doubled in oceans, it means you can move you ships very fast to. (which is very useful if you want to sail to Sicily)

 

[AbsintheRed]

We do want to represent the Viking expension to the Americas somehow and this is the best option to do so.

2. It would certainly give the player a lot more freedom. But I think it would also make the UHV a lot easier and less challeging. And these areas are historically controlled by the Vikings. (not that the conquering coastal cities isn't historical)

3. Not all UP should be strong. It might not be strong, it's certainly useful. As you said it's necessary of their Vinland goal and it creates some shortcut. They also provide some safe territory to heal your ships by preventing them to be attacked. (useful for their 3rd UHV) And as the movement is doubled in oceans, it means you can move you ships very fast to. (which is very useful if you want to sail to Sicily)

For 3, I also want to add, that I removed a lot of coast in the recent map changes
So, the Norse UP got even more useful, the double speed on oceans really helps them gets to the meditarrenean fast enough

For 2, I somewhat agree that it's too restricting
We don't have to stick to the historical territories this much
I'm not against adding a little more freedom here
Say: Conquer Scotland, Normandy, and at least 2 mediterranean ports

 

[AbsintheRed]

Usually only one out of Burgundy and France can survive into the 1400s. It's about 50/50 chance. In one Ottoman start I have a superpower France who controls the entire east coast of Iberia up to Almeria. I agree the balance between France and Burgundy is roughly OK.

Byzantium though, collapsed in 4 of the 5 games I loaded (1 Swedish start, 4 Ottoman starts), and in the 1 game it did not collapse it has not expanded beyond its starting borders. It sometimes dies to Venice & Diverted Crusade, as expected. IMO the only case where Byz becomes superpowerful is if it wipes out Bulgaria on spawn AND the Arabs collapse to Barbs/Crusades AND there is no Diverted Crusade.

Interesting
In 3 of my 4 Ottoman starts Byzantium was powerful. Alive in the 4th one too
Also, in one case they were the definite superpower in Europe.
After most of my starting units were already lost to heavy fighting in the starting area, their huge army (previously attacking some poor indy) arrived back, with 10+ knights and 6-7 bombards

In general I think we should maintain that Byzantium & Arabia are unlikely to collapse by Ottoman spawn. Otherwise the game is too boring for the Ottomans. The Balkans seems fine - EITHER Hungary OR Bulgaria would become really strong there and offer the Ottomans some serious challenge.

Yep, Hungary should be the regional power, up until the Ottoman conquests in the Balkans

The good news is that Cordoba seems to be doing OK in most of my Ottoman spawns. They always manage to build the La Mezquita if they survive till that time, but they don't become a superpower that wipes out Spain either. They usually split Iberia in half with Spain at that point. I think the balance changes did the trick.

Actually it was a preplaced Sevilla that made the trick
Apart from the obvious buff to the early production, it also keeps out most of the early barbs from the cordoban capital's area

I plan to do something similar for Austria too, with adding Graz as a preplaced city
Altough it's primarly not against barbs, but the culture pressure from Venice

From wiki:
In the 14th century Graz became the city of residence of the Inner Austrian line of the Habsburgs. The royalty lived in the Schloßberg castle and from there ruled Styria, Carinthia, most of today's Slovenia and parts of Italy (Carniola, Gorizia and Gradisca, Trieste).
Politically and culturally, Graz was for centuries more important for Slovenes than Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, and still remains influential

Looks pretty neat after the first tests
Austria will start with Wien, Graz, Prague, and Salzburg (most cases the germans found it before their spawn, so flips)
With potentially settling in Moravia, maybe in Silezia
So 5-6 cities on a relatively small area, decent start to build a powerful Austrian Empire

 

[Opera]

In real life it would be impossible to colonise Vinland without Iceland

Nice missing of the point

3. Not all UP should be strong. It might not be strong, it's certainly useful. As you said it's necessary of their Vinland goal and it creates some shortcut. They also provide some safe territory to heal your ships by preventing them to be attacked. (useful for their 3rd UHV) And as the movement is doubled in oceans, it means you can move you ships very fast to. (which is very useful if you want to sail to Sicily)

Of course all UP should be strong. Strong doesn't mean only militarily or what have you. It's more like they were given this UP because they can't complete their UHVs otherwise. It feels tackled on out of necessity.

We do want to represent the Viking expension to the Americas somehow and this is the best option to do so.

I understand that you'd want to put the colonization of Vinland in but I'm against it: 1) it's a boring goal, 2) it was a failure and you have no way to even fail it, 3) you have to settle an isolated, useless city, 4) it's the goal you could remove in order to add one for the later era.

2. It would certainly give the player a lot more freedom. But I think it would also make the UHV a lot easier and less challeging. And these areas are historically controlled by the Vikings. (not that the conquering coastal cities isn't historical)

You can make the UHV challenging without being so strict. I know they were historically controlled by the Vikings but I guess I'm more leaning towards alternate history than just redoing history.

I note none of you addressed my complaint that your Norse civ is basically only a Viking civ.

 

[Wessel V1]

I agree but would go further to propose the Norse goal to be about 'settle (or control) x landmasses, but including the Brittish Isles. The problem is there are too many unoccupied islands in the Mediterranean if you settle them early. Blitzing Genoa on an island isn't exactly the hardest thing to do. On the other hand, 'make sure no civ controls a Mediterranean island' could be fun. It would at least require Sicily as a launching point.

 

[merijn_v1]

For 2, I somewhat agree that it's too restricting
We don't have to stick to the historical territories this much
I'm not against adding a little more freedom here
Say: Conquer Scotland, Normandy, and at least 2 mediterranean ports

I'm not completely against it either, but I don't want to give the player too much freedom. There should still be some restriction IMO. (too much freedom can be exploited too easy I'm afraid)

How about something like this:
Conquer(/control) X Baltic (coastal) cites (1), X Brittish (coastal) cities (2), X Mediterranean (coastal) cities (3) and X Atlantic (coastal) cities (4).
1. Sweden doesn't count ofcourse, as it would make this part too easy. I was thinking of about 1-2 cities in this part.
2. All provinces in Ireland and the Brittish Mainland count. About 2-4 cities.
3. Speaks for itself. All cities at the Mediterranean coast count. 1 city required. Maybe this one should be limited to the Islands, as otherwise you can get the required city by land.
4. All (coastal) cities from Hamburg to Portugal count. About 2-4 cities.

This gives the player freedom to choose which exact cities he/she will conquer. But it also forces the player to conquer in various, semi-historical areas.

So if you want, you can avoid Scotland, but that means you have to conquer/control more cities in Ireland/England/Wales.
Or you can avoid France and conquer Northern Spain instead.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I note none of you addressed my complaint that your Norse civ is basically only a Viking civ.

You do have a point with that, obviously
I'm not yet sure though how I want to handle it
Let's get back to this after it's decided whether the Norse will remain this way, or be split into Denmark and Norway

 

[AbsintheRed]

I agree but would go further to propose the Norse goal to be about 'settle (or control) x landmasses, but including the Brittish Isles. The problem is there are too many unoccupied islands in the Mediterranean if you settle them early. Blitzing Genoa on an island isn't exactly the hardest thing to do. On the other hand, 'make sure no civ controls a Mediterranean island' could be fun. It would at least require Sicily as a launching point.

I'm not completely against it either, but I don't want to give the player too much freedom. There should still be some restriction IMO. (too much freedom can be exploited too easy I'm afraid)

How about something like this:
Conquer(/control) X Baltic (coastal) cites (1), X Brittish (coastal) cities (2), X Mediterranean (coastal) cities (3) and X Atlantic (coastal) cities (4).
1. Sweden doesn't count ofcourse, as it would make this part too easy. I was thinking of about 1-2 cities in this part.
2. All provinces in Ireland and the Brittish Mainland count. About 2-4 cities.
3. Speaks for itself. All cities at the Mediterranean coast count. 1 city required. Maybe this one should be limited to the Islands, as otherwise you can get the required city by land.
4. All (coastal) cities from Hamburg to Portugal count. About 2-4 cities.

This gives the player freedom to choose which exact cities he/she will conquer. But it also forces the player to conquer in various, semi-historical areas.

So if you want, you can avoid Scotland, but that means you have to conquer/control more cities in Ireland/England/Wales.
Or you can avoid France and conquer Northern Spain instead.

The Viking lifespan is rather short, so we should avoid too complex UHVs
200 years are only 50 turns, so we shouldn't add too many targets
Maybe it's better if we stick to the current version. Historical, and IMO somewhat fun - at least if you don't play only with the Norse civ over and over again

 

[ezzlar]

Two changes I would like to be implemented for next version:

- Acheiving 2 out of 3 UHVs gives you a Golden Age and a Triumphal Arch in your capital. The Arch gives you +50% military production. We already have the Heroic Epic giving +100%. Scrap the bonus or convert it to +50% culture or something else.
- Free civic change during Golden ages. This helps old empires like Byzantium that start with ancient civis to transform into a modern and versatile civ in no time. Early start civs already have huge advantages over newly spawn civs, they dont need this boon also. Byzantium and other old empires should be "forced" to have older civics, which in part also lead to their decline and letting new civs take over. So, its realistic from a historical point of view and it is reasonable from a game play perspective also. It needs to go!

 

[AbsintheRed]

Two changes I would like to be implemented for next version:

- Acheiving 2 out of 3 UHVs gives you a Golden Age and a Triumphal Arch in your capital. The Arch gives you +50% military production. We already have the Heroic Epic giving +100%. Scrap the bonus or convert it to +50% culture or something else.

Which one?

- Free civic change during Golden ages. This helps old empires like Byzantium that start with ancient civis to transform into a modern and versatile civ in no time. Early start civs already have huge advantages over newly spawn civs, they dont need this boon also. Byzantium and other old empires should be "forced" to have older civics, which in part also lead to their decline and letting new civs take over. So, its realistic from a historical point of view and it is reasonable from a game play perspective also. It needs to go!

Actually I like that feature
You make some good point though
Any other opinions on this?

 

[Opera]

Which one?

I think he means scrapping the military boost from the Arch because it'd stack with that of the heroic epic.

Actually I like that feature
You make some good point though
Any other opinions on this?

I like it too. Golden ages don't grow on trees, so it's not like it'd happen often. Maybe an halfway solution could be to have GAs reduce anarchy from civic change by 1 turn. So if you change all your civics, you'll still get 1 or 2 turns instead of 2 or 3.

 

[AdrienIer]

Maybe an halfway solution could be to have GAs reduce anarchy from civic change by 1 turn. So if you change all your civics, you'll still get 1 or 2 turns instead of 2 or 3.

Yes, reducing the anarchy by 1 turn would allow for maximum 2 civic changes per GA (if you want to avoid any anarchy), which would limit the problem while keeping the feature.

 

[simplicissimus]

Sounds good
Btw, you shouldn't have quit before the Seljuk attacks
For Byzantium that's the biggest challenge

I loaded an autosave from my game and played it through the Seljuk-invasion. I focused my research on getting cataphracts and castles. Meanwhile history went a little different as I mentioned in my post before:
I was able to keep Aleppo but lost Caesarea this time and the Slavic barbarians made a lucky punch when spawning with the plague in Adrianople!

I build stables in my cities in Greece and Western Anatolia and started popping out cataphracts around 1000. By the time of the Seljuk invasion started I allready had about a dozen cataphracts producing more and more. Seljuk invasion is massive indeed but I was able to build up an even more massive defense. Not a single Seljuk attacked one of my cities only the guisarmiers I weren´t expecting did some pillaging for a few rounds. Then I had some units to encounter them! (nice change by the way, so you don´t need only cataphracts!)

I also experinced this
In my test runs, Burgundy made a hard time on France, with the latter getting the upper hand by the Ottoman spawn
Great news about the conquest of Constantinople
Byzantium should probably be nerfed though, they were superpowerful in a couple cases

Bad news about that: In my game as Poland (I actually quit because Super-France with the conquered provinces of Burgundy was not to be beaten for the UHV2. Around 1500 they produced ~ 530 food, I made ~370, world average ~170 and I expanded ´til the borders of stability!) the Ottomans did take constantinople but Byzantium did not collapse. The Ottomans did after about 100 years! So yesterday I started a game with Austria and the same here: The Ottomans took Constantinople, the Timurids were ravaging in Eastern Anatolia which still was Byzantine but the Turks collapsed after a while, not Byzantium. This needs to be nerfed definitly!

Great, thanks!
Just upload your text fixes here

I tried to do correction directly in the XML-files but I´ve got ablolutly no experience and wasn´t able to do so. Do you have any link were XML is explained or would it be enough just to write the corrections in here?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Bad news about that: In my game as Poland (I actually quit because Super-France with the conquered provinces of Burgundy was not to be beaten for the UHV2. Around 1500 they produced ~ 530 food, I made ~370, world average ~170 and I expanded ´til the borders of stability!) the Ottomans did take constantinople but Byzantium did not collapse. The Ottomans did after about 100 years! So yesterday I started a game with Austria and the same here: The Ottomans took Constantinople, the Timurids were ravaging in Eastern Anatolia which still was Byzantine but the Turks collapsed after a while, not Byzantium. This needs to be nerfed definitly!

Hopefully both are fixed, uploaded some small balance changes a couple minutes ago
Ottomans are definitely less likely to collapse now, and both the Byzantine and the French are slightly nerfed

I tried to do correction directly in the XML-files but I´ve got ablolutly no experience and wasn´t able to do so. Do you have any link were XML is explained or would it be enough just to write the corrections in here?

Just upload here in plain text files if you are having trouble with the XML, I will merge them in

 

[AbsintheRed]

I think he means scrapping the military boost from the Arch because it'd stack with that of the heroic epic.

Yep, I just wanted to ask which wonder's bonus should be changed, the Arch's or the Heroic Epic's
Anyway, if it's the Arch, there should be a more unique bonus IMO, not culture
Any ideas?

I like it too. Golden ages don't grow on trees, so it's not like it'd happen often. Maybe an halfway solution could be to have GAs reduce anarchy from civic change by 1 turn. So if you change all your civics, you'll still get 1 or 2 turns instead of 2 or 3.

Yes, reducing the anarchy by 1 turn would allow for maximum 2 civic changes per GA (if you want to avoid any anarchy), which would limit the problem while keeping the feature.

Sounds nice in theory, but unfortunately this is not a trivial change
Don't want to spend too much time on this...
Do you guys have some other ideas maybe?

EDIT: Also it's rather easily exploitable
A golden age lasts for 8 turns, but you can switch your civics every 5 turns
The change you suggesting may lead to some really unconventional play with the civics
(and no, I don't really want to change the 5 turns/civic change rule)

EDIT2: On second thought, the current system already leads to some unconventional play with the civics
Maybe I should increase it after all? Somewhere around 10 turns between civic changes
That's 30 years in the mid-game. Is it too much?

EDIT3: One more aspect to your suggestion:
Noone really wants to have anarchy under golden ages. Everything has a huge bonus under GA, including production and commerce
Let's say about +50%. So if anarchy is reduced to 2 turns from 3 turns, that 2 turn GA anarchy means the same as the 3 turn normal anarchy would have meant
That leaves us with no actual bonus (apart from a very small stability bonus)

 

[Opera]

I don't think the arch needs any bonus actually. You get it because you're already winning by getting 2 out of 3 UHVs. Do you really need a bonus to keep going?

Re: GAs; 5 turns is too short I'd say. Golden Ages aren't frequent and I'm fine with them being used to change civics freely, it's fair and by the rules. Just see it as an abstraction of glorious reforms by the current government, if that helps.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I don't think the arch needs any bonus actually. You get it because you're already winning by getting 2 out of 3 UHVs. Do you really need a bonus to keep going?

Yeah, as I said I'm fine with removing the military unit production bonus
You are right that no big bonus is needed there.
But we can always think of something cool instead of it, not necessary a huge bonus, just something to represent your progress

Re: GAs; 5 turns is too short I'd say. Golden Ages aren't frequent and I'm fine with them being used to change civics freely, it's fair and by the rules. Just see it as an abstraction of glorious reforms by the current government, if that helps.

I'm not sure we understand each other
GAs are for 8 turns, didn't say I'm planning to change it
I was talking about increasing the civic change timer, without changing the golden age length.

So one possible solution is to have golden ages for 8 turns, civics are free to change under GA without anarchy, but civic change frequency is reduced, so you can only change your civics once per 10 turns
This of course means you can only use your "free" civic change option once per a golden age

 

[Opera]

Yes, I understood you. I was merely stating the topic and I did mean that 5 turns between each civic change is too short and should be lengthened. Sorry for the confusion! Twice as much sounds good to me.

As for the Arch, well, 1 might do it. Although I still think that's icing the cake on top of the cherry...

 

[AbsintheRed]

As for the Arch, well, 1 might do it. Although I still think that's icing the cake on top of the cherry...

Actually I meant something fun for the player, not necessary a balance changing bonus. The free golden age is already a huge advantage
Something like a great general appears in your capital, with a totally unique unit?
You can name your GG, the unit can be some sort of Royal Guard for example
I'm sure we can come up with a fun concept