What shall we research next?

What would you like to see done?


  • Total voters
    258
yep I fully agree with SadoMacho, the classical era now is more interesting but the modern/future era is almost inexistent.
In RAND the problem is bigger, it is almost always impossible to launch the ship in time for the space race victory.

edit: @perceval
the chances of collapsing increase with gameplay time because more turns mean more permanent hits to stability. So in a 1700AD start they would be minimal without any change to the code.
 
I just finished a game as the Americans and noticed how exciting modern warfare can be in RFC, so i strongly agree with a late start. But it should be somehow connected with some few additional UHVs for the modern civs.
At the moment only America, Germany and maybe Russia and Japan have some "tasks" in the modern era, and its just more fun to conquer a specific area at a specific time than rampaging over the continents with modern armors.
 
On this subject I air-bombed Japan into submission as Russia today. It's fun, but it would be more so if the AI were able to keep up. Maybe I need to play Emperor.
 
I really like the idea of SadoMacho about the events development.
I think RFC should be developed by personalizing events, and adding concepts like dynasties thorugh them.
Regards
 
a late start would also fix the problem some people (like myself) have with wait times between turns, and it would give more longevity to the civ's because of less stability hits.

It would also be nice if every "quest" in RFC were scrapped and replaced. I have a small idea, and im not sure if its possible, so i will hope the experts criticize it.

Every country should be given UHV goals as quests. the idea, is to re-flavor the events to suit RFC's unique systems.

Brennus spawns with 3 celtic cities in france. Brennus is a gaelic warrior promoted by a GG and heads to rome.
Goal 1: Kill Brennus.
Reward: Great General. / Fail: Rome revolts for 3 turns.

Goal 2: Capture/raze the 3 celtic cities in france.
Reward: +4 relations to france upon spawn. Fail: -4 relations to France upon spawn.

Visigoths spawn in Germany. X barbarian units spawn and begin razing cities in europe.
Goal: If you stop them, Roman stability region expands and gains +4 relation with germany upon spawn.
fail: -4 with Germany upon spawn.
Settle Albion. Build Londinium, and Camulodunum.
Trigger: Camulodunum spawns Boudica, a Great General promoted gaul warrior.
Goal: Kill Boudica and her Celtic Warriors.
Reward: Great General promoted prat named Suetonius Paulinus.
Fail: -4 stability in Albion cities, -4 relations with England upon spawn.


Plague/Civil Disorder is emerging from corruption!
Build X Aquaducts/amphiteatres.
reward: Gain X stability bonus / Fail: Plague/Riots.

Defend Constanople: This is the end of the roman quests, should they take the city. Arabia/Persia will declare war and rome must hold its assets until all friendly european units spawn. If you do, you see a victory screen that rome led europe to a golden age. if you like, you may resume playing rome and seek to conquer europe (as you have stability bonuses for conquest) which will be no easy task. or you can play another civ and watch rome collapse in the annuls of time, having drained its resources.

Each "region" in it's UHV would have a similar goal. Each civ would have flavored goals and not everyone would be conquest. some civs will recieve stability leniency/positive bonuses as rewards for completion of its tasks along the way. Rome would have a "story" of sorts. the first great general is a standard GG - the second, Suetonius Paulinus, has no promotions besides Great General and will be promotable by Rome when he spawns in Albion.


If adding in new "story quests" is not going to happen then re-flavoring them to give stability bonus rewards, slightly increased stability regions and perhaps have a few techs or other events giving a stability bonus. (entering a new era, for example)

Lastly, if "further development" is chosen i was thinking a few ideas should be pitched. I also support what SadoMacho said about modern gameplay. perhaps a 1700 start would be a different scenario with a few of its own civs.

Egypt, and Babylon for example could be replaced with native americans and zulu (as egypt and babylon respawning in the first place would ruin the AI and lead to a massive clump of indy territories all over the world).

The time could be rescaled to allow about 500 turns of play with a re-scaled tech tree to conform to a 500 turn (or so) "length" game.

So far so good on all the ideas and criticisms everyone, i hope Rhye doesn't get a headache looking at it when he gets back!
 
I really like the idea of SadoMacho about the events development.
I think RFC should be developed by personalizing events, and adding concepts like dynasties thorugh them.
Regards

Yes those personalized events seemed very cool to me as well. Aside from Europe, I think those personalized events could really add some spice to the more isolated civs in Asia and the Americas to keep things interesting there and still feel as if you're making history unique to that civilization

@ OneDreamer: you make good points. As an incredible lover of the classical era as I am, I must agree that the modern era does seem boring. I'd still pick the Greek World over modern RFC though. Just putting it out there, but if there was an RFC Greek World would the extra turns given to the classical era in "normal" RFC be cut back to give the modern era more time?

And Japan is great in the 600 AD start: I have China on the verge of collapse with 5-6 nice cities by 1000 AD, difficult to do this with 3000BC start.
 
No, no they definitely do NOT start from scratch. Besides, the way that it's been arranged is annoying and ahistorical.

By "start from scratch" I meant that they don't have pre-built cities/tile improvements/etc.

but predictability is exactly what I am speaking against. I don't want to play a button that replays history, I want to play a game. A lot of stuff is already predetermined in RFC, I really don't think we need more.

Also makes developing a strategy for America next to impossible. 600 AD is too difficult, 3000 AD you have no idea what the would could be like. Some of us haven't played RFC (or even regular BtS; I mostly mod so it's understandable that I suck) enough that we can think "X has happened so Y and Z will happen soon". And it takes me over an hour to get to America from 600 AD alone. No way I'm going to try 3000 BC with America. And the current strategy guides are obsolete due to the fact that England no longer declares war (at least it didn't in a couple of games that I did just to see what the world looked like with the AI autoplaying to 1775) and the fact the America's tech rate is a whole era behind in the 600 AD start.
 
And the current strategy guides are obsolete due to the fact that England no longer declares war (at least it didn't in a couple of games that I did just to see what the world looked like with the AI autoplaying to 1775) and the fact the America's tech rate is a whole era behind in the 600 AD start.

i think my strategy guide works quite well on monarch. however i will soon update it to include a screenshot of my city placements. for each start i have learned a few 8-12 city cites that work pretty well and encompass everything relevant.

The 3000 BC start is the best america because of:

tech rate is much more balanced.

more plagues and wars have caused conflict among the AI.
(for example, in the 600 AD start, the other nations can get your wonders in no time because they are all buddies who haven't had to deal with more than 1-2 miniwars and maybe 1-2 plagues.)

In the 600 AD start, you can get more frequent babylon/egypt/carthage/greece/rome respawns that ruin the whole game leaving a mass clump of indy states all over the world. THIS is why i favor the 600 AD start/any later starts change those civ's to: Native America - Zulu.

In the 3000 BC start, you can actually remove every country after aztec, and include Nubia and Celts in their place. (yes, this would require each timeline be rescaled to 500-800ish turn games allowing more to each area by each scenario focusing on each area one at a time).

Likewise in my above post, my idea of heroes came from FFH, and it would be nice to get a great general promoted unique unit as a reward for completing a tough goal. (it doesn't need a special graphic or anything, just a named great general promoted unit that its controller can promote up to 20 exp)
 
By "start from scratch" I meant that they don't have pre-built cities/tile improvements/etc.

China in 600AD is sorrounded by rich indipendent cities that you can conquer. If I am not wrong there is even the Great Wall already built. I really fail to see how can you call that a start from scratch if you think at the start in 3000BC. That is a *real* start from scratch, and it's quite different, so you can't define them with the same word.

Also makes developing a strategy for America next to impossible. 600 AD is too difficult, 3000 AD you have no idea what the would could be like.

A part from the fact that you like to use extreme terms where they don't feat at all, like "no idea", what strategy do you need to develop as America ? I think that whatever the situation is in the world, it's the easiest civ to play -strategy wise-, if you go for the UHV. You need to research or trade the techs for the 3 wonders, make engeneers to help build them fast, and prepare an army to invade the middle east for oil. That's all, and it won't make a difference between a 3000 BC or 600 AD start.

And it takes me over an hour to get to America from 600 AD alone. No way I'm going to try 3000 BC with America.

that's another problem, which isn't concerned with gameplay which is what I was talking about. Btw, there are pregenerated saves for this reason.

and the fact the America's tech rate is a whole era behind in the 600 AD start.

Ok... just one note: blatantly lying like this isn't goint to take the discussion anywhere.
 
The hardest part for the Americans is the "No european cities in 1930". The cities in the caribean are sometimes really hard to conquer (cant attack them with siege), and if Mexico is conquered and whole Canada/California colonized, then you have a tough time to conquer all that until 1930.
 
It's generally possible, even if Mexico has been colonised. The trick with the Caribbean is to wait and hope for the 1800s plague!
 
that thread is very old, there have been changes since then. Even if, America would never be a full era behind in tech. It could have a coupla less techs at start compared to a coupla civs, but it will also have several other techs to trade with the other civs.
 
america shouldn't be trying to get democracy, steel or steam power when the rest of the developed, relevant world is researching physics, military science and assembly line.

but i think the solution to the problem of america's starts is more related to the terms of its start. Onedreamer has a valid point that you can usually get ahead - far ahead by trading correctly, and to prove it:

Spoiler :
go to the Rhye wiki and there are pre-generated saves for America and Aztec. i believe i uploaded the america one myself because of how impressed i was to pregen a start with carthage, egypt, and india alive and well.

in this game, america sure FEELS hopeless until you get on good terms with England, Netherlands and France. in this specific save, i was able to win 3-4 times without having to fight too much for my seaboard. i had a rough time with frenchmen in the great plains but its possible to settle all needed land before the settler can hit you.

America by trading with aztec (it will respawn), mali, japan, turkey, france etc - just might bump all these countries up pretty high in score and make itself look irrelevant.

however in this save your in a good spot to build your wonders! so don't let that fail.


Ultimately, America in the 600 AD start is a hellish experience and im sure some of the more advanced RFC vets can clean sweep through it. my experiences with it on 3000 BC are always fun but in 600 AD i struggle not because of the tech level (yes, it really hurts in combination with other factors) but the real kicker is all the euro-friends.

when europe is not competitive with each other and they all binge on colonization and nobody goes to war, they all turtle up and it becomes pretty impossible. however in this thread (and in another?) the issue is rather beaten to death and i hope Rhye - between all that is said about it has a few directions he can think about to rebalance this. i think all the feedback on america has been quality but check the details of this thread a little bit more because a few sub-discussions were started in it and america was one of them.

Edit: in the more modern start, america relatively starts off a full era behind in tech because it SHOULD spend its first several turns on libraries, universities then choosing between obsavatory/markets. all the time it can take to get these buildings while researching a tech at 60 turns - while still needing to build units to protect it and drop tile improvements on your naked land can make it take a very long time.\

in these cases if you can't get yourself out of that hole rather fast you might be researching assembley line while everyone else is on refrigeration.

but i think its less about giving america more techs and slightly improving its start in a few other ways: more plagues and wars during the time america is waiting. perhaps (for the AI) all units free upgrade to riflemen and (for the player) something to ensure you aren't that far behind.

normally its NOT hopeless but often it can feel like it is. the main thing to remember is in RFC, america can make its full expanse without leaving home. 6 cities east of the rockies, 1 city in them, 1/2 on the west. that gives about 8 cities you can use to cover your entire landmass and bring in all those resources. also, because your working almost all cities on BFC instead of 8x8, you get more for less, so you can make another internal city if you need to relieve city stability later.

and just because you kick europe out of america doesn't mean in any way that you can make it to your UHV, especially when your frigrates and riflemen stare down destroyers and infantry. trading techs is the ONLY way but its very tricky because you don't want the AI to start researching assembly line ahead of you. but thats also just it!

Once you have assembley line you can build the pentagon and assuming you got the statue that means the worst of it is over and you can trade your techs guilt free. also, as pointed out by others its good to stick to the center paths in the tech tree because the AI likes the top/bottom paths a lot.
 
bah for the human player america is one of the easiest civs to play. I really don't get all this complaint. That the AI is stupid and doesn't trade its tech at start or can't defend from natives we are already aware. It's not like Egypt wins its UHV as the AI anyways. I think that perhaps the users in this forum are too much... american ? :D

I mean "normally it's not hopeless but often you can feel it is". How many civs can this apply to ? India anyone ? Come on...
 
That the AI is stupid and doesn't trade its tech at start or can't defend from natives we are already aware. It's not like Egypt wins its UHV as the AI anyways.

And the weakness of the American AI is exactly we are complaining about. Egypt and most other ancient civs are meant to usually collapse, but the USA is meant to be strong.

and doesn't trade its tech at start

It's possible to make the American leaders do that by modifying the XML.
 
1. Protestantism, if implemented correctly, will come pretty late in European history so much of the trading will have already happened.
2. Even if you have Protestants and Catholics, they won't necessarily go to war all that much more often, and you have two big groups of nations who are still quite eager to trade with other members of their groups.

If there is a problem, it is that America puts its cities too closely together. Two tiles between cities is workable in Europe but it is more difficult in NA, which has less resource density, plus it stops America from expanding across the continent as quickly.

Maybe the settler map for America should be amended so that not all tiles in the 50 states have equal priority.
 
Also, if Europe will be divided into Catholics and Protestants and a somewhat world war will break between all the Catholics and the Protestants, then they'll like each member of their group even more, which will encourage more trading and defensive pacts and the like.
 
Back
Top Bottom