Turn/timeline changes
- Thread starter AbsintheRed
- Start date
El Bogus
Prince
You never have?!Ahh. I guess it's starting to get obvious that I never played RFC or DoC.
I just can't stand the scale there. For me it's totally immersion breaking that a historically big and very important civ is represented with 2-3 cities, tops.
Man, was I addicted to RFC. It's relatively beginner friendly, too, because civics, units, buildings are largely the same as in vanilla BTS.That said, it is my impression that RFC:E is also not too strange for a new player.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Yeah, I already said that that might be on the plate at some point.
In the previous post I was talking about the general indy mechanics.
More separation would be good there too, with all the collapses and city secessions. Tying together a city in say England and Bohemia always feels strange.
But since it's not possible to represent all cities separately, it's probably not worth really worth it to add more. Won't be a significant improvement.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Yeah, I checked it, saw that the style itself is very close to my heart (well, I'm still modding it, so this is kinda given I guess), but hate the scale and the oversimplified civ and tile representation because of it.You never have?!
That said, it is my impression that RFC:E is also not too strange for a new player.
Tried RFCE right afterwards, and never looked back.
TheMulattoMaker
Dictator of RF
That's the main issue I have with the indy cities. It's a little unsettling to have an indy war galley that's peacefully exploring my coast suddenly turn into a vicious killer because I attacked an inland city a thousand miles away.
Force44
King
My bad. Thanks for correcting me.
Excuse me for going a bit off topic, but why would more be better? If you want them to cooporate more wouldn't it be helpfull to have less different independent factions? Or do you want them to cooporate less?
AbsintheRed
Deity
Of course.
That's the point of the whole thing.
I think it would improve it if indy cities in certain areas of the map were 'grouped' together as unplayable civs. Particularly in Western Europe - you could have the Visigoths in Spain, Kingdom of the Burgundians for Lyon and Marseille, Lombards in Italy. That way there is are clear groupings and if you attack one city you attack them all, but don't trigger some random indy city miles away to attack you.
Ahh. I guess it's starting to get obvious that I never played RFC or DoC.
I just can't stand the scale there. For me it's totally immersion breaking that a historically big and very important civ is represented with 2-3 cities, tops.
I agree to an extent. Used to love RFC and DoC, but find it hard to go back now I've played RFCE, RFCCW and SOI. Although I do also find it hard to play the Arabs in RFCE, after playing them in RFCCW where the timeline means you get to conquer the whole Umayyad Caliphate within 120 years of spawn. Conquering the Magreb in 600 years seems a bit tame after that!
Hopefully the changes to Arabia and Egypt will make me love them again 
AbsintheRed
Deity
How many turns does that mean there?
Yeah, some more groupings can be done in a couple preset areas.
That still doesn't solve the main problem, but I don't think there is a good solution without separating them much more.
Around 80 IIRC. I think it's the same as SOI, 2 turns every 3 years, throughout the whole duration of that mod.
But the map spans all of Europe, Asia and Africa north of the Sahara, across a much smaller scale than RFCE - there are only three cities across Morocco and the whole of Iberia only has enough room for five cities IIRC. The Sinai is only one tile wide at Suez, so there is a city which is on the Med and the Red Sea.
Also Ghazis in that mod have 8
,4
and +25% city attack, and most units have 2 so movement is much easier, and most city defenders only have strength 6 with 25% city defence (marksmen) or 25% vs mounted (heavy spearmen) so you have a big advantage on the attack. Mercenary ships (and mercenaries) are pretty plentiful so invading Spain is easy and you can keep hiring mercs to garrison cities as you go. Stability is also a bit broken in that mod, imo - as long as you are conquering cities in historical and border areas and cities aren't unhappy it is difficult to go unstable.
Not sure how you could match that in RFCE with the larger map, religious instability and fewer turns. To be doable it would probably require:
- Ghazis with 9
available from the start, with 3, march and no terrain movement cost- The ability to remove foreign religions from a city on spawn (a "drive out the heretics" option a la SOI)
- Many more mercenaries available so you can keep cities garrisoned without taking from your main force
Even then the number of turns may make it difficult, although playing on marathon would ease the issue of healing between conquests.
Gaining an ability to receive less stability hit from foreign religion should do the trick. Removing foreign religions makes no sense since a majority of the Levant continued to be Christian/Jewish until the 14th century. Instead Christians and Jews ran the administrations of the early Caliphates.
AbsintheRed
Deity
Marathon? I'm not even sure how could an early conquest goal like this be balanced for both a normal and a marathon speed.
The starting army totally dominates the gameplay. If it's doable in normal, would be laughably easy on a speed where you have (for example) twice as many turns. Even if everything is set to take double time to produce/research/grow/etc. all those things would mean nothing compared to the initial army being way more useful on the slower speed.
Anyway UHV1 for the Arabs should be like that of the Franks, you are pressed for time, and have to conquer as much as you can, with the last conquest should be coming in at the last minute. It will be hard, but the other two UHVs should be easier.
AbsintheRed
Deity
The last minute, as in the revolts and spawns around 900?
I agree with the general idea, the way we both want to have the UHV is kinda given.
The question is whether it can be realistically done within ~40 turns. As I said a couple of times, I'm very pessimistic about it, but will see what can be done when we get to the actual implementation.
The current Frankish UHV is like that, and there are plenty of time pressured conquest UHVs in SoI. They are a challenge, but they are exhilarating. Now that you are redoing the early game timeline, I don't see how this should be an issue whatsoever. You can add more dates to make it doable if it is not already.
AbsintheRed
Deity
No, this is far from true. I can't go overboard with additional turns, I have to heavily take performance into account too.
Maybe even the proposed 600 turns is a little too much with the planned additional civs and map updates.
So it definitely won't be more than 3 turns/year for the first 100 turns. That means there are maximum 41 turns from the Arab spawn to the potential Umayyad-Cordoban spawn in 756, which is the latest possible date for your suggestion.
On the other hand the mixed/generalized Umayyad-Abbasid-clientstates UHV could end around 900, which can be somewhere around 85-90 turns.
As I said a couple times, I would also prefer the 1st version as it's way better historically, but gameplay will probably limit us to the second one.
The second has some other benefits as well, most already mentioned in the thread, like the UHV deadline being a better division for the shift of playstyle. The AI could also handle it infinitely better (without the need the hardcode way too many things)
AbsintheRed
Deity
50 turns means 782 as the earliest possibility.
We can increase it to a round 90 turns if we set the goal to 902
We can increase it to a round 90 turns if we set the goal to 902
90 turns is ridiculous. Again you would only be attacking independent cities, a few barbarians and the weak Byzantines. I seriously don't see why this should take that long. I only said 50, to round it up from 41. But as you said in another post, we'll test it out and see how feasible my UHV1 proposal is.
ales_
Heir
I agree that more than 3 turns/year would be too much.
