The other thread is a bit of a shambles. I think we need a more organized thread so people can see clearly what there is to be done and so on. I'll update this post and the one below in a bit.

Rhye if you see this post as superfluous feel free to get rid of it, but I think we do need to have a concise reference point for this scenario's development.

---

Rhye's of Europe

Introduction

Rhye's of Europe is a scenario under development which uses the RFC game system, based entirely in Europe. The game is planned to run from 870 to 1900. You'll be able to play many of the major medieval and early industrial European powers: from Hungary to Venice, there'll be a wide variety of playable civilizations, each with their own UHV, UP and territorially set cities, just like the original RFC.

Calling All Programmers and Writers

Please post here or PM me so that you're "registered" as a developer - this is just to keep tabs on who's doing what and so on, to make it more efficient generally. This is for all writers, artists, and coders alike: if you have some kind of skill to contribute and the time to do it don't hesitate.

Development Team

- Vince-G: co-ordinator, writer primarily (some code)
- mitsho: writer
- Úmarth: coder (? confirm please)

Civ List

Disputed
Not Civ4: BTS civ

France
England
Celts
Netherlands
Burgundy
Spain (Castille)
Portugal
Andalusia / Cordoba / Almoravids
Norse
Holy Roman Empire
Poland-Lithuania
Austria
Switzerland
Byzantine Empire
Russia (Muscovy)
Hungary
Ottoman Empire
Abbasids, Fatimids, Mameluks
Papal States
Venetia
Lombard League
Kiev
Novgorod

Reserved - Reserved - Reserved

You're right it is a bit of a shambles, so care to give lazy people like me a summary of what Rhye's of Europe is? :D

A basic intro is now up.

I like the idea. Looking forward to it. :D

I like the idea. Looking forward to it. :D

Good good.

To Mitsho and other interested developers:

I was just thinking that we could perhaps impose large penalties for Venice and the other Italian states for expansion, in the form of stability (patricianal government not too suited for running a multi-city nation) and economy. What do you think?

Since I'm not much of a programmer, I be helping out by giving suggestions and providing cold beer/rootbeer (for those under 21).

^ Sounds like a good idea to me, but maybe this penalty would diminish when conquering other Italian states?

Well, Yes, I in any case would favour something to hinder Venice to become a large land-based state. But it must have the possibility to become a "large" (sea based) trading post/station empire... Why not use stability, something that can do this.

So, which way do we go? Does someone (you... ;)) create a "vision" of the mod or do you want to discuss it with people in here (the latter normally doesn't work)? Who is going to do the actual work? (I can't/won't).

If you want to discuss it in here, I propose the following scheme:

1) Timespan?
2) Map Orientation?
3) Which Civs?
4) Tech tree // Units // buildings // Wonders etc. ... (Rhyes Idea: Stay as close to "normal" game as possible)
5) Then looking at each civ
a) Entry Date?
b) UHV?
c) UP?
d) Ratings
5) Careful Choice of the Actual map (that late so we can take into account everything beforehand and change the map accordingly...)
6) Implementation of all this leads to a first playable version!
-------
7) tweaking & further additions like (in no particular order)
a) (Historical) Events
b) Religions & AP
c) Colonies and European Economy...
d) Congresses
e) Stability... !!!
f) ...

--> We can even start with a playbale version after point 5a, namely without UP&UHV being done. Also the buildings/tech tree/units/etc. don't have to be finished. It is important to bring a playable version out as soon as possible

----------------------

So, Timespan, You say 450 to 1750.

- What happened in or after 450? "476 - Rome Adex" goes a rhyme. If you start that early, you need to have the Western Roman Empire... No thanks. Further things like the battle of Tours need to be included. and so on and so on. Then we have the Frankish Kingdom which was important but it'd need to be destroyed to have a historical play. which is difficult if you play it as a human (for AI not), but which civs would you like to play at that time if not the Franks? So I vote for leaving it out and start in 870 AD. That is the time of the treaty of Merseen when France and Germany split up. The popular middle age scenario of civ3 conquest started at this time as well. (Actually, it started 30 years earlier with the more famous treaty of Verdun, but I wouldn't like it. Of course, this is not perfect as well, as England for example loses quite a bit... and we practically would need to have something statelike already for "Germany" and France...
On the other hand, I like the idea of excluding "modern" European history, as this can become way to complicated (ideologies). Still, 1750 is rather early (and a bit arbitrarily), don't you think? 1789 as the date when "Ancien Regime"-Europe stopped to exist. But this leaves out a lot of conflict... 1815, as the end of Napoleonic Europe? 1848 as a revolutionary year? 1871 as the final set up of modern Europe, a lot of developments came to an end in that year, political and others. So I would Propose that as an ending date. As it is a unaesthetic number, let's move it a bit back (the prussian UHV cannot be achieved with the last turns, it wouldn't make sense, would it? ;)). Thus, I have: 870 to 1900, makes 1030 years, less than what you proposed.

m

How are colonies going to work. Since many european powers like the netherlands and portugal had vast colonial lands in comparison to their homelands, how can it be implemented?

450-1750 was roughly the timespan of how Whitefire wanted the game to be, not my own vision. I agree 870 to 1900 actually works somewhat better.

Rex rgis: will deal with these things in turn - after we've got the game's structure as mitsho is laying out, then we can carry on to do these things he's listed as "7.".

If I've understood you we actually have 1 ready then: 870-1900 seems perfectly fine to me, and if anyone objects they can say so.

I think we should move number 4 down, and have 3 and 5 together. I mean this is, after all, a Rhye's of scenario and so it should use virtually the same - if not the same - units, techs and so on as RFC (so, close to the normal game). So perhaps swap 4 and 5?

How about there being both a Holy Roman Empire and Prussia? The HRE would spawn early, and then Prussia would appear late in the game, on cities defected from the HRE and any independents in the area (???). This would prevent the need for ridiculous amounts of independents in Germany, and allow one of Prussia's UHVs to be to conquer or vassalize the HRE.

How are colonies going to work. Since many european powers like the netherlands and portugal had vast colonial lands in comparison to their homelands, how can it be implemented?

i suggest colonies being wonders that become available with a colonialism tech, giving ressources and hammer/gold/science boni...

Some thoughts:

(1) The HRE: HRE should be a title that can be awarded to a country by the AP and has certain benefits. It should not be a civ name. We should have Austria be a playable civ, and probably the Teutonic Knights be a playable civ. Prussia isn't important until very late, and i have some objections to including the industrial era in a medieval focused scenario (see below).

(2) We should limit ourselves more by technological/cultural era and not by specific events so a unified thematic game can be produced. Even in a loosely construed middle ages there is a remarkable amount of technological and social change to account for, all of which is rather interesting, and much of which will get lost or obscured if we take the game much past the Renaissance.

(3) I would argue for stopping the game before the Napoleonic era for a couple of reasons: (A) It will be impossible to represent the organizational changes in military structure which made Napoleonic France so successful in a civ-style combat framework. Basically, military thinking underwent a substantial change during that period, and many of Napoleon's early victories are due to his adopting a cutting edge theoretical organizational doctrine and implementing it, which gave his army a substantial advantage in deployment and keeping his opponent from retreating. It wasn't until his foes adopted the same doctrines that they were able to defeat Napoleon's forces. (B) The french revolution implies a marked change in the nature of government and how governments are perceived. It really is a good measure of the start of "modern" government theory. One could equally well make an argument for the rise of the United States heralding the same thing, except the impact wouldn't be felt in europe until the French Revolution (which really was a flawed attempt to bring the American ideology to continental europe). (C) Concommittant to the change in perception of government, the french revolution also carried with it a profound difference in the role of the peasantry, and the ideas of what makes a country culturally and socially.

If nothing else, stopping at 1900 gives these themes too little time. As they are not going to be a focus of the scenario, it would be far better to just exclude them entirely.

(D) Finally, it strikes me that focusing on Europe's feudal period is probably the best policy. Including things like Revolutionary France makes the differences in implementation of feudal systems seem rather minor, when instead they should be a focus of the scenario.

(3) Skipping the period of Charlemagne feels like a mistake for a scenario that looks like its mostly focusing on the medieval period. In particular, the rise of a feudal system should probably be taken as the starting period. I would argue for either the fall of Rome or the start of the reign of Clovis I of Merovingian France as the beginning of the scenario, although i'm not recalling the dates offhand. I'm pretty sure this means 6th century sometime.

(4) I like the suggestion on colonies as wonders.

(5) Another thought on end date: 1776 marks the start of colonies escaping the control of colonial powers with the successful American war of independence. Ending at 1775 seems reasonable as it means we don't have to worry about how colonies get lost. It should also be noted that the later we go, the more important things and events outside of europe should be, which will be harder to accomodate.

Conclusion on timespan: ~500 AD - 1775 AD. I'd be far happier ending it earlier than that as compared to later. The start date shouldn't be any later than 600 AD.

Conclusion on timespan: ~500 AD - 1775 AD. I'd be far happier ending it earlier than that as compared to later. The start date shouldn't be any later than 600 AD.

I totally agree with that.

i suggest colonies being wonders that become available with a colonialism tech, giving ressources and hammer/gold/science boni...

Reminds me of another mod ;)

Some thoughts:

(3) I would argue for stopping the game before the Napoleonic era for a couple of reasons: (A) It will be impossible to represent the organizational changes in military structure which made Napoleonic France so successful in a civ-style combat framework. Basically, military thinking underwent a substantial change during that period, and many of Napoleon's early victories are due to his adopting a cutting edge theoretical organizational doctrine and implementing it, which gave his army a substantial advantage in deployment and keeping his opponent from retreating. It wasn't until his foes adopted the same doctrines that they were able to defeat Napoleon's forces. (B) The french revolution implies a marked change in the nature of government and how governments are perceived. It really is a good measure of the start of "modern" government theory. One could equally well make an argument for the rise of the United States heralding the same thing, except the impact wouldn't be felt in europe until the French Revolution (which really was a flawed attempt to bring the American ideology to continental europe). (C) Concommittant to the change in perception of government, the french revolution also carried with it a profound difference in the role of the peasantry, and the ideas of what makes a country culturally and socially.

If nothing else, stopping at 1900 gives these themes too little time. As they are not going to be a focus of the scenario, it would be far better to just exclude them entirely.

(D) Finally, it strikes me that focusing on Europe's feudal period is probably the best policy. Including things like Revolutionary France makes the differences in implementation of feudal systems seem rather minor, when instead they should be a focus of the scenario.

O_o
All these objections would be valid for the regular RFC too... I think none of them are actually a problem, as Vince-G I think the tech tree should stay the same, maybe a couple added dead-ends (similar to the mod mentioned above, namely Europa Europa 3) but no more. The only things to change in the tech tree are Wonders and Religions, IMO. Instead of worring about military originizational revolutions, that don't seem of such great impact to me maybe because I live in the old continent, I would discuss about the social impact religions had in Europe: Heresy, Crusades, Reforms, etc. It would be nice to add these as a game element. And maybe the feel of "dynasticism" of the european royal families (I have a coupla ideas about this that I thought for a mod I wanted to make on medieval europe but that I will never manage to do).

(3) Skipping the period of Charlemagne feels like a mistake for a scenario that looks like its mostly focusing on the medieval period. In particular, the rise of a feudal system should probably be taken as the starting period. I would argue for either the fall of Rome or the start of the reign of Clovis I of Merovingian France as the beginning of the scenario, although i'm not recalling the dates offhand. I'm pretty sure this means 6th century sometime.

Fully agree about early feudalism and vassalage, but you had already made a point number 3 ;)

(5) Another thought on end date: 1776 marks the start of colonies escaping the control of colonial powers with the successful American war of independence. Ending at 1775 seems reasonable as it means we don't have to worry about how colonies get lost. It should also be noted that the later we go, the more important things and events outside of europe should be, which will be harder to accomodate.

Hmmm well if I'm not wrong most of South America obtained independence only from half of the 19th century, African and Asian colonies in the 20th century, so I would say ending the game in 1900 seems fine, or maybe at half the 19th, or in 1861, when Italy was unified and the world changed ( :rolleyes: ). No, seriously, I think we should first think HOW would the game end (space race is out of question I'd guess); the best date for its end will come after answering this question.

Reminds me of another mod

i knew i had seen this in a civ mod before, but i still cant point my finger on which one exactly...

All these objections would be valid for the regular RFC too... I think none of them are actually a problem, as Vince-G I think the tech tree should stay the same, maybe a couple added dead-ends (similar to the mod mentioned above, namely Europa Europa 3) but no more. The only things to change in the tech tree are Wonders and Religions, IMO. Instead of worring about military originizational revolutions, that don't seem of such great impact to me maybe because I live in the old continent, I would discuss about the social impact religions had in Europe: Heresy, Crusades, Reforms, etc. It would be nice to add these as a game element. And maybe the feel of "dynasticism" of the european royal families (I have a coupla ideas about this that I thought for a mod I wanted to make on medieval europe but that I will never manage to do).

Except those revolutions in military organization ultimately did have social consequences. Not that I think including the social impact of religions is a bad idea, i just think we could do both.

I think we should ultimately revise and focus the tech tree substantially. Because otherwise it'll just feel like abbreviated civIV and not like a fully fleshed out scenario.

I should note that the changes Napoleon caused in how war was conducted have been among the most significant in the history of warfare. But because differences in weapon technology are far more obvious than differences in confrontational doctrine to a lay person, Napoleon merely gets lauded as a great general, while in reality he had as much of an advantage because of doctrinal differences as a rifle would against an armored knight. In fact, he lost most if not all of the engagements when he and his opponents were on equal doctrinal footing.

I should note Civ has traditionally ignored military organization, which is a shame, but the combat model doesn't really accomodate it. However, when the opportunity exists to restrict a scenario to just one predominant military organization doctrine (painting in broad strokes here, obviously), that is definitely a plus. I'd already made a lengthy post on what I'd like to see on the military end of Rhyes of Europe - mostly to correct for weirdness in how units are handled in CivIV compared to their actual historical military value.

In general, CivIV avoids some of those criticisms because its painting with a far broader brush. You don't need to dwell on different types of some government forms when the differences between Police State and Representation are so much more pronounced. But when you focus down more, you lose a lot of that variation, and so smaller variation becomes more important. (CivIVs ignoring of military organization is one of my big pet peeves actually, and one that its large focus does *not* rectify).

Additionally, I think one of the things a temporally and spatially restricted scenario should do is introduce finer gradations between various military units to allow having more advanced units be less of an advantage to keep the playing field more fair.


Fully agree about early feudalism and vassalage, but you had already made a point number 3 ;)

So i did. Oops.


Hmmm well if I'm not wrong most of South America obtained independence only from half of the 19th century, African and Asian colonies in the 20th century, so I would say ending the game in 1900 seems fine, or maybe at half the 19th, or in 1861, when Italy was unified and the world changed ( :rolleyes: ). No, seriously, I think we should first think HOW would the game end (space race is out of question I'd guess); the best date for its end will come after answering this question.

Oh, its a gradual process, certainly. But the loss of one of them within the game's timeframe means we have to think about how and why (mechanically) colonies become independent.

Hmm... possible victory conditions:
Conquest (duh)

Domination (duh)

Colonial Domination - control N colonies, where N is a large number. Possibly just call this Colonial Victory

Historical - complete your UHV

Cultural?

Religious - Eliminate all other religions and have your religion spread to X%. (Must also control the holy city?) See Gods of Old (bundled with BTS), which has this victory condition.

Might also want to include an "Economic" victory, but this could be bundled into UHVs for civs like Venetia.

All of these work in a 500-1775 timeframe. Actually, the possibility of Religious victory argues for an earlier end date, as religion was losing some of its importance by that time.

There have been a few detailed posts and I'll have to reply to each of them in turn.

For the moment however:

Can anyone who wants to be involved in this project as a developer of any sort - writer, coder or artist - state so or PM me? Just to keep a tab on everything.

To the colonialism debate. First Proposition: Having them as Corporations! Further farther along!

Contra Squirreloidus

1) I agree, but be careful not to confuse these things. The Pope should be independent of it. It'd need a detailled good inclusion. --> LATER!

3) That was my idea as well. Only 1900 gives a good ending as it is the end of these themes. Afterwards comes World War I and we are in the middle of "modernity". I certainly would love to make a Rhyes of Europe and not a Rhyes of the Middle Ages. Something too specific in my opinion. I fear we would loose to much if we threw out that era. But I can live with it.

4) What is it that makes the era of Charlemagne so great? What was the setup of Europe at the time? Ok, let's start earlier. Map of Europe 450 AD (fall or Western Roman Empire)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/66/Europe_map_450.PNG/300px-Europe_map_450.PNG
-> You have many "Barbarian" Tribes not yet settled and the huns. How do you want to represent this? You cannot start with civstyle one city civs...

I have no time to search for a better map for 600 AD, so here is a link:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/East-Hem_600ad.jpg/300px-East-Hem_600ad.jpg

Can you tell me: With which civs would you start? Here is the death of Charlemagne 814 AD:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/76/Europe_814.jpg/761px-Europe_814.jpg

2 Questions:
- Which civs do you start with?
- Who will get to play that huge monster ruling Europe, Carolingian Empire? Which player will be willing to see that monster crumble?

I must admit I don't have time to provide a map for my suggested date (no time sorry), but Imho, the situation looks a little bit better, and as you pointed it out with my late starting time beforhand, we can save ourselves a lot of trouble if we start with these protonationstates and can leave developments beforehand out.

However, I am ok with ~1800 as stop. As stated, we do not need to specify everything into stone now.

I am happy if we keep the tech tree as it is. Cutting and adding and tweaking a little bit. The same with the victory conditions. Otherwise, we could make Europa Europa, and not Rhyes.

So, can we close discussion on the date and then move on to map and civs? I proposed one map in the old thread (And Rhye proposed one too afaik).

m

I have to say that 600 is very messy: only three or four of those civs are civs that I can see having any notable impact over the long term of this scenario. 450 is even worse, there are no good playable civs around at that time that will last realistically for the course of such a scenario.

I'd say let's stick to 870. In fact I'm happier moving the start date forward than backward.

I have no major qualms about moving back the end date to 1800 or so, but I agree with mitsho about 1900 being a good date to stop.

For now I think it's safe to assume 870-1900 as the time span of this scenario. We'll get the problems sorted out as they come, and quite frankly we can keep the end date in discussion after the civs and so on have been decided (I don't see the collapse or rise of any major civ really by that time).

Let's move on to the civs themselves and keep the time span as a reasonably tentative 870-1900.

Also: is it possible and/or reasonable to have 24 civs on the map? (Since I'm finalizing my proposed civ list)

do you really want to cut out the middle east and northern africa? i mean it would be playable but it somehow just wouldnt feel right...

First, obviously i'm interested in being involved, at least at the brainstorming and planning stages. My code-fu is existent, but i've never done any modding of civ before, so possibly non-applicable.

Second, with a start ~reign of Clovis I (sometime between 500-600AD iirc), we'd have France as a playable civ for sure. (Clovis I starts the Merovingian dynasty of France). We'd also have the Danes (who should get started about then to be capable of raiding at their historical time - note 550AD start time in RFC), possibly the English (depending on if you wanted England to represent both the anglo-saxons and the normans, otherwise England gets delayed until the 11th century), the Vatican/Papal States/whatever we're calling this, the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines), and possibly some other of the Italian city-states (not too clear when they became political entities, honestly).

So that's:
France
Eastern Roman Empire
Danes/Norse
English (?)
Papal States
Venetia???
Genoa??? or Firenze??? or Milano???

Which is at least 4 and at most 7. Note that RFC has 4 starting civs in the 3000 BC start, and I believe 4 starting in the 600 AD start. We could possibly squeeze a few more in with dynamic civ names.

Third, from the sounds of things it looks like I'm interested in a far more detailed and altered game than many of the other people. Which i suppose is fine, but it probably leads to me suggesting things from the sidelines rather than participating more directly. But I really would be in favor of a massive revamp/expansion of the appropriate section of the tech tree (including getting some things *right*), and a desire to focus on one or two cultural/technological eras over including the industrial era so we could build a tech tree/units/civics system which has a distinct flavor and isn't just CivIV (or even RFC) writ small.

(I'll also second the opinion that we really need the holy land on the map, because the crusades were hugely important to Europe's political and religious climate.)

Rhye's of Europe is a scenario under development which uses the RFC game system, based entirely in Europe. The game is planned to run from 870 to 1900. You'll be able to play many of the major medieval and early industrial European powers: from Hungary to Venice, there'll be a wide variety of playable civilizations, each with their own UHV, UP and territorially set cities, just like the original RFC.

I think it would be better if the Scenario ended in 1920 (or even 1930), after WWI, that's a better date because that kind of marks the end of european supremacy on the world. Also, i would love to fight wars with biplanes and FT 17 tanks at the end of the game.

I'm a pretty decent programmer, can't say I've done any serious civ modding before but I'd like to get into it. So if you guys need help then give me a shout.

I'm sure you've already got loads of ideas so you probably don't need any more. I would like to say going up to 1900/1920 even might be a bad idea. There's a reason games like M:TW and EUIII stop in the early modern period (before 1789 definitely), because so many things changed then with the industrialism, nationalism, humanism and all that. Either you change the entire game mechanics or you scale back on the details and it becomes not a game/scenario about one era but about many... which is what RFC vanilla is about.

Again, let's not worry about the end date too much. Whatever it is - within reason - it shouldn't have too much bearing on the civs, which is what we're going to focus on now. I don't think the end date will be moved forward, definitely not to encompass World War I. There's a reason it's called World War I - it involved heavy sending of troops from British colonies, American involvement and other things that a Europe-only scenario can't encompass.

I think we will be including North Africa and the close Middle East, but I can't guarantee anything, as the map will be chosen after we have the other fundamentals laid down.

If you want to help out, then please do! We definitely need a coder.

So, it seems we need to have a fundamental discussion beforehand. (I would like to answer to you, squirrelloid, again, but I think it wouldn't lead to much before these fundamental things are not clear.)

What sort of Mod is this going to be?
Its working title is "Rhyes of Europe". Please be aware that there already exist mods on Europe. (European Middle Ages (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=256);European Empires (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=233834); and more which I am not willing to search) These already alter the gameplay significantly (sometimes). So, there is already a market/product for these sort of games, isn't there?

What is the beautifulness of RFC? I would put it that way: Historicity, near to the vanilla game concepts (with heavy tweaking from time to time), addition of "unfun" game elements, "whole history", Civs starting at all times. RFC takes a look at the globe. We decided to take it down to one continent. I would opt for keeping the rest the same. Make it as multi-era as possible, use the vanilla tech tree with additions (the bi-planes ;) although these might not make the cut ;)), add these fun unfun elements (Plague, Stability, Congresses). Of course, for these things we need coders to "localize" Rhyes code, and everything we talk in here accounts for nothing...

But as I understood, this thread is to democratizise the mod into the most popular choice or the volonté générale... I actually don't think this is possible at large scale, so we need the dictator to decide where this mod shall be going. Keep in mind, we need someone to do the work too.... ;)

m

PS: Overviev: Rhyes of Europe
timespan: "Early Middle Ages" - "Consolidated States", roughly AD 600 - 1800, tbd
Map proposal (just a screenshot so far):http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/37457/RFE.JPG or http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=154492&d=1182098432 (cut a bit (lot) on the northern half). The map has to be "small", if we want to have "many civs", also, it makes it easier!

At last, the old project had this: http://wikirhye.wikidot.com/rhyes-of-europe
Quite astonishing what was already done...!

m

My first comment: There are so many things so many people will want included in this mod, it's not even funny. The additions to this mod compared to RFC should be limited, as to retain the full Rhye-ish feel. If you tinker with it too much, Rhye's is lost in the ever-growing compost pile, forever forgotten in the depths of molding leaves and broken twigs. I would much prefer for this to be a "specialized" version of RFC, like doing a zoom in on your screen to see parts clearer. (in this case, zooming in on Europe) In conclusion, just add what's needed to make Rhye's work for the different faces and stages of Europe.

I'm no coder either, but my ideas for the scenario fall pretty close to squirreloid's. I'd be happy to write or handle maps, or to do the tech tree - I think that there should be some substantial revisions, to avoid that abbreviated feel.

I'm in favor of the earlier start as well, for several reasons.

First, the original RFC and 600 AD start begin with a handful of civs playable. That seems eminently reasonable, and I think of a civ like France or the Byzantine empire as being like Rome or China in RFC - while you start with significant advantages and spend much of the game in a position of power, the trick is hanging on, rather than building up... Starting with France, the Vikings, England, the Papal States, and the Byzantine empire sems like a pretty good opening lineup. If we're including the Maghreb, the Abbassids or the Caliphate (shaky) should also be included. Eastern Europe should have a heavy barbarian presence for most of that time, but in roving bands; it might be worth adjusting the barbarian code so that they don't build cities (I believe this is the case in RFC anyway).

Second, if we're trying to create a dynamic mod/scenario, the decline of older civs and appearance of new ones is going to be the source of most of our excitement. We don't have to have all of the areas full at a time; most of the emptier areas can be historically represented with barbarians or strong independent cities.


I put in my idea about control of the Apostolic Palace and reworking of great prophets in the other thread; if this were implemented, the value of GPs would be significantly increased - think of the implications for crusades. Alternate ways of handling crusades might be similar to the way plague is done now - crusade spreads to a city; units are removed from your cities against your will, and appear in some state of disarray/damage somewhere in the holy land, back under your control. Is that too evil? It's not that unlike the way the actual things worked... Along the same lines, if crusade spread sort of like plague, you could use GPs to preach crusades in the territory of your rivals (or even against them, as in the Albigensian crusade?), as a sort of espionage tactic.


In any case, I vote for 1800 as the end of the scenario, and 600 as the start.

So, it seems we need to have a fundamental discussion beforehand. (I would like to answer to you, squirrelloid, again, but I think it wouldn't lead to much before these fundamental things are not clear.)

What sort of Mod is this going to be?
Its working title is "Rhyes of Europe". Please be aware that there already exist mods on Europe. (European Middle Ages (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=256);European Empires (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=233834); and more which I am not willing to search) These already alter the gameplay significantly (sometimes). So, there is already a market/product for these sort of games, isn't there?

So, my impression was that this was going to be the same number of turns as a standard game but squeezed into a lesser year span. At which point we either markedly expand content (tech, units, etc...) to match, or it feels sort of half done, since we're going to be using at most half the existing tech tree.

Further, something RFC (and CivIV) have going for them is they get to paint with broad strokes because they have all of human history and the whole world to draw from. When we're dealing with just europe, we're going to end up ejecting some civics choices, for example (ie, caste system doesn't really seem to belong). Further, when we cut the year range down, some civics options don't really seem appropriate. (in a ~600-1800 game, universal suffrage is inappropriate, as is police state. Free speech is questionable. etc...). This can actually be an advantage because you can use this pruning away of appropriate options to develop other civics choices more appropriate to the era. Often the differences between your civics will be smaller than the differences between the standard civics - but thats ok, the scenario is working on a smaller scale.

Its not just that I want a medieval scenario, its that the scope of this project is well suited to a medieval++ scenario. Really, medieval through age of enlightenment is what i've been talking about. (Speaking of which, the Nationalism tech comes too early in standard civ, it should be post-renaissance). But that is an inherently nice timeframe because it has a number of important themes that can be done justice, from social organization to religion, without them being insignificant in scope (compared to if we tacked, say, the industrial age onto the end of it, whose huge social reorganization leaves previous themes looking like unitary entities).


What is the beautifulness of RFC? I would put it that way: Historicity, near to the vanilla game concepts (with heavy tweaking from time to time), addition of "unfun" game elements, "whole history", Civs starting at all times. RFC takes a look at the globe. We decided to take it down to one continent. I would opt for keeping the rest the same. Make it as multi-era as possible, use the vanilla tech tree with additions (the bi-planes ;) although these might not make the cut ;)), add these fun unfun elements (Plague, Stability, Congresses). Of course, for these things we need coders to "localize" Rhyes code, and everything we talk in here accounts for nothing...

What makes it RFC for me is the UHVs and the multi-era civ spawns. The presence or absence of vanilla game concepts doesn't really bother me - in fact, playing RFC generally means doing things rather differently from vanilla because various factors (stability, plagues, uhvs) mean vanilla strategies are bound to fail. I'm mostly arguing for increased historicity here, and that we can better achieve it by focusing on particular era(s) and by further tweaking the tech tree and unit abilities. The vanilla tech tree is actually pretty awful for the eras we're going to be including. (Knights at guilds when the knight was the entire basis of the feudal system? Muskets at the same time as cannon? Castles so late that it isn't worth building them?)

And I'm strongly in favor of including other unique features that enhance historicity, possibly at the expense of "standard" game play. (See my proposal on the appearance and spread of new technology in the old Rhyes of Europe thread).


PS: Overviev: Rhyes of Europe
timespan: "Early Middle Ages" - "Consolidated States", roughly AD 600 - 1800, tbd
Map proposal (just a screenshot so far):http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/37457/RFE.JPG or http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=154492&d=1182098432 (cut a bit (lot) on the northern half). The map has to be "small", if we want to have "many civs", also, it makes it easier!

At last, the old project had this: http://wikirhye.wikidot.com/rhyes-of-europe
Quite astonishing what was already done...!

m

That map is notably missing the holy land, which is crucial to the scenario. Arguably, any map for Rhyes of Europe is going to need Jerusalem and Cairo (target of the crusade led by St. Louis (Louis IX of France)), and will probably want to include Damascus as well (admittedly close to Jerusalem in civ tile terms). In fact, for Italian city-states like Venetia and Genoa, a full mediterranean is a good thing, because that was their sphere of economic influence.

And small is probably too small. I'm guessing we really can't get away with a map smaller than large. I could be wrong. But I already hate how close the computer builds cities in RFC, and would like a europe with enough space so that I can have more than one city which can use most of its tiles.

That map is notably missing the holy land, which is crucial to the scenario. Arguably, any map for Rhyes of Europe is going to need Jerusalem and Cairo (target of the crusade led by St. Louis (Louis IX of France)), and will probably want to include Damascus as well (admittedly close to Jerusalem in civ tile terms). In fact, for Italian city-states like Venetia and Genoa, a full mediterranean is a good thing, because that was their sphere of economic influence.

And small is probably too small. I'm guessing we really can't get away with a map smaller than large. I could be wrong. But I already hate how close the computer builds cities in RFC, and would like a europe with enough space so that I can have more than one city which can use most of its tiles.


I'll second a vote for a larger map, and work on adapting one of the ones i've already done. Even the one-city civs of RFC (dutch, portuguese) realistically had multiple urban centers; you can make the same argument for the independent Italian city-states (Venice controlled Trieste, Bologna, Verona, and the surrounding area). The one-city challenge is a fun game in some ways, but it really doesn't fit the map very well - without the prospect of real colonies, or room for expansion, the dutch and the like are going to suffer.
The risk of a larger map is having a large amount of open space in Eastern Europe - but there generally wasn't much going on there. A civ like Poland will fill some of that space, but the Ukraine just isn't going to be as densely populated as the low countries, and that's ok. There are going to be different styles of play for different civs and different areas, and the map should facilitate that.

Another map-related question: as there's no silk or ivory in Europe, do we replace them with other luxury goods, or leave them out? Do we leave sugar in, in the form of sugar beets? (in my favorite Euro map, I've put sugar in the Pripet Marshes and parts of Baltic Russia, changing the terrain to tundra/jungle). Do we use the RFC marsh for the Pripets, the fens south of Norwich in England, and much of the Netherlands?
Possible options for European luxuries: Amber (Baltic region); Cotton (Anatolia and Egypt); Beer (redundant with wine? would presumably be concentrated in colder areas); Wool or linen? (linen in swampy areas?) Olives?

Thoughts?

One thing I'll say is if your going to fish the scenario at 1900 you should fit World War 1 into it. It was pretty much just a European war anyway. I do think late 18th Cenury is a good finish date.

idea (way too early for this i know, but i just had it now)
what about simulating crusades by giving all catholic civs a quest derived from that "we need to secure this ressource across the border" quest (giving jerusalem, antioch and cairo a hidden ressource)
the question is if english knights will ever make it to the holy land... whould it be possible to program a crusading stack working similar to the one in m2:tw?

I don't have much time now so I can't reply to all of the comments given just yet. One thing I'll say however is that I agree the map should be made a tad larger, to include the whole of the Mediterranean and some more of northern Africa, to allow a larger Ottoman Empire and Crusades.

Crusades will definitely be included.

I think we should make a poll so everyone can vote for te dates, maybe 2 polls, 1 for the starting date and 1 for the ending date.

My proposed civ list:

Western Europe
France
England
Netherlands
Burgundy

Iberian Peninsula
Spain (Castille?)
Portugal
Andalusia ("moors")

North Central Europe
Norse (Denmark/Sweden/Norway/Iceland)
Teutonic Knights
Poland-Lithuania (yay dynamic civ names!)
Austria/House of Hapsburg

Eastern Europe
Eastern Roman Empire
Russia
Hungary
Ottoman Empire

Middle East
Abbassaid Caliphate (someone check my spelling please)

Italy
Papal States
Venetia
Genoa

Total: 19

I've purposely left a lot of holes in Eastern Europe, in part because I am unsure of the significance of many of the previously proposed civs during various points in this period, and in part because my impression was that they were mostly battlegrounds for the Hapsburgs, Ottomans, and similar powers. There is room for some additional civs (Whitefire was estimating 22-23 including independents in the previous thread).

Which brings us to Independents:
Celts
Occitania
various unallied Balkan cities
Other?

Things I've dropped:
Switzerland - I ultimately decided it wasn't necessary, and I'd rather have the space for something else. However, we seem to have space...

Norway et al. - First, I think if this were to be more than one civ, Denmark and Sweden would be the two to choose. However, they have really distinct periods of dominance, and have strong cultural and historical ties. It makes sense to treat the whole region as one Norse civ. (Iceland of course being a colony).

The Balkans - Along the lines of what I said earlier, having this be independents crushed between nascent superpowers seems perfectly reasonable.

Near Russia - Honestly, except for Poland-Lithuania, none of the Kingdoms up there (Moravia for instance) struck me as anything other than battlegrounds for their more powerful neighbors.

So, I suppose this is looking for 1-2 more civs to add. Switzerland is probably a decent choice, as would be separating Poland and Lithuania. Alternately, we could stick in Firenze in Italy. (I prefer not sicily since that should be captured first by the muslims and eventually be held by England!).

Something that vaguely annoys me is that it would be really nice to be able to play Saxon England as distinct from Norman England. I suppose their could be a William the Conqueror event, in which a bunch of troops land in England and if they take London, England becomes Norman. For the AI, having a switch in civs like this isn't a problem. For the Saxon England player, that's basically saying that they have to hold London or else they're done - i suppose they could be offered control of the Norman England Empire... This could make one of Saxon England's UHV goals "Defeat the Norman Invasion".

I also toyed with making Occitania a playable civ, but they were never really unified politically. A few powerful independent city-states seems better suited.

Possible Idea:

Since this will be based on Rhyes and I assume the idea of 'core areas' will be retained I propose some sort of 'Unification' event.

-Modern states like England/Britain, Spain, France, Germany, Russia, and Italy did not emerge fully formed into the world, what happened was that a nation was forged via military might from a group of Feudal principalities, any one of which had a chance for triumph (though some had advantages).
-Thus instead of starting off with England et al I suggest the initial civs should be of those subnational entities each with their own starting date and core area.

England
-Northumbria
-Wessex
-Mercia (very questionable, if only for space reasons)

France
-Aquitaine
-Normandy
-Ile-de-France
-Burgundy
-Toulouse (maybe)

Germany
-Austria
-Netherlands
-Brandenberg
-Saxony/Bavaria
-Hanover/Brunswick (questionable)
-A Western German State (which one is questionable)

Italy
-Tuscany
-Venice
-Sciliy/Naples
-Whichever northern Italy state is best suited.
-A rump Rome ;)

Russia
-Kiev
-Novogorod
-Vladimir-Suzdal (later Mucovy)

Its a lot I admit, so maybe trim it down to a max of three per big nation

-These go about in their normal way, but whenever any Civ gains control of 66% (including those of its vassals) of the territory of a 'Nation Region' then they are now able to build a 'National Wonder' (in the purest sense of the term ;)) of cost X that causes all the cities in that region to have a very strong chance of flipping to them, and adds the national core area to their own area for the purposes of whatever. It may also move their capital, and change/add to their UP, UU, and UB.
-Thus in you have a number of States in england (Wessex perhaps dominant), the 'Normandy' Civ invades, conquers, builds the 'England' National wonder in London causing the capital to move and a Civ with a core area encompassing England and Normandy to emerge and control the isle. However later the Ile-de-France civ has been a-conquering and manages to build the 'France' Wonder wiping out the other French Civs (including the Norman part of the new English civ).
-This also allows the dymanic of having vassal regions in other countries which was very much a feature of medevil europe. Plus the capitals will be in different places each time and give everything a very 'similar but not quite the same' feel you get from Rhyes world map. It also gives an easily chosen UHV for each of the subnationals - unite their country ;). (It fact a UHV for normandy of Uniting England, Uniting France and having the highest score by X would be really appropriate eh?)

Coding all that could be a bugger I admit, but you're building on already built components.

I think a new techtree is essential. There needs to be more added in to fill the extended medieaval age/rennasance.

OK, I must make something clear. This is a Modcomp and not a Modpack. Whilst it'd be wonderful to have a modpack for this, we're sticking to the RFC mod as closely as possible, meaning some of the ideas here can't really be implemented. This is Rhye's of Europe and not the Big Europe Scenario (or anything along those lines).

Again, we're dealing very much with the question of how many major civs we can reasonably have without the game gumming up (RFC isn't well-known for rapidity in the late game anyway). Also, Squirrelloid, your civ list leaves out most of Germany, but otherwise seems to be the same as the one I've drafted.

Dynamic civ names will obviously have to be a factor in this.

Disenfranchised: Good ideas, but how easy is their implementation, and furthermore, many of those civs would make much more sense as independents.

I hate to sound like a spoilsport but we have to think about ease of implementation and ease of play, as well as the fact that this is made essentially for RFC, and that RFC was not made for this.

@disenfranchized too complicated. I'm sorry

@map my vote for why no Middle East:
- It is called Rhyes of Europe. Adding the middle East would further complicate things (and in differentation, the Maghreb has had "direct" influence on Europe).
- We would need to have at least one civ that was/were mostly more directed away from Europe, these civ would sit at the edge of the map at a black wall and not have much to do.
- Were the Crusades really that important, respectively had a lasting effect (besides with movies) and can be represented in the game (How many turns would the +/- 200 years of Crusades be in the game of 1000+ years?).

This is way I proposed my map as beforehand. I would present a better one if I had time...

@civ list of Squirreloid:

Western Europe
France
England
Netherlands
Burgundy

Iberian Peninsula
Spain (Castille?)
Portugal
Andalusia ("moors")

North Central Europe
Norse (Denmark/Sweden/Norway/Iceland)
Teutonic Knights too far East, We have no HRE this way, thus a civ that can form the HRE together with Austria, Netherlands, Switzerlands, etc. This poses a real problem. If we really stop at 17something, we don't really need Prussia, instead a generic HRE civ with vassalised others? (got a better solution)
Poland-Lithuania (yay dynamic civ names!)
Austria/House of Hapsburg

Eastern Europe
Eastern Roman Empire
Russia
Hungary
Ottoman Empire

Middle East
Abbassaid Caliphate (someone check my spelling please)You know I would cut that away

[b]Italy[b]
Papal States
Venetia
Genoa

Independents
Celts
OccitaniaWhat? scratch that imho! a generic independents category is better
various unallied Balkan citiesWhy not have them as Serbia?

So, what I propose:

Western Europe
France
England
Celts
Netherlands
Burgundy

Iberian Peninsula
Castille -> Spain
Portugal
Andalusia/Cordoba/Almoravids

North & Central Europe
Norse (Danes -> Calmar -> Sweden)
Holy Roman Empire (with vassalised other states to begin...)
Poland-Lithuania
Austria/House of Habsburg
Switzerland

Eastern Europe
Eastern Roman Empire
Russia
Hungary
Ottoman Empire
Serbia

Italy
Papal States
Venetia
Genoa

Independents
Independents

Makes 21 states, and I wouldn't "vetoe" a Middle Eastern civ, although I am no fan of it. ;) 22 would be a fine amount, and depending on the map can be nicely spread out.

I was just throwing an idea out there in response to Squirrelloid's post, I have no idea how hard impliementation would be ;).

@mitsho:
-I would recommend spliting Russia up into Novgorod, Muscovy and Kiev at least (maybe dropping Serbia). A fills up space a bit more and drives conflict and B all these groups have interesting relations and effect on european history. Plus moscow didn't dominate till at least the 1400s, so having 'Russia' earlier would be silly...
-Replace Celts with Scotland and have the others as independents (not unified at this time, and none were powerful enough)
-Since this period will be starting before the rise of the Ottomans, put the Abbasid Caliphate in as the big scary power in the Mid East. Since during this time frame they are entrenched in egypt, rife in North africa and reaching sardinia and sciliy I think they should be in ;). They did a lot in the med.
-Genoa, I'd say a generic North italian city would be better (or perhaps 'The Lombard League')

2-3 more Civs :mischief:?

I really don't get what's the problem you guys are having with the social or military revolutions that happened in the 19th and 20th centuries. It seems that you are discussing about Europa Universalis, but this is Civlization, specifically RFC, and RFC ALREADY COVERS this period so I really can't understand how can you consider a problem including it, if you don't consider it a problem when playing RFC (I'm fully with Umarth in saying that the best end date for a european scenario would be WWI or WWII). If this is a scenario then the tech tree can't differ much from the mod, the most I would do is add some dead ends and change wonders/religions. If you do anything more than this then it's going to be a different mod and you should think of another name and post in another forum IMO, to be correct towards Rhye's work and RFC's popularity.

On another note, starting the mod in the merovingian period is a risk because what we know of this period is mostly a myth, also playing Clovis I means you would be playing the Frankish civ, not the French civ.

Civ List

I think you guys are forgetting the nature of RFC, specifically of the rise and fall of civs. It would be better to start thinking of how many civs at once we want to be playable (especially important for the multiplayer), once we know this we can determine which are playable, which are minor, and when should they spawn etc.

- We do not have place for both Irish and Scottish, thus I'd rather have one civ and not *piss off* the Irish, same with the Scandies.
- Moscovy and Kiev, why not? but let's keep short on civs. If we can simulate them with independents I'd be fine. I would gladly kick out the independents if we wouldn't need them for collapsing civs (Or Barbs?)
- I added the "Arabs" again!
- The HRE starts with or is very prone to vassalize the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Lombard League depending on start date.

Timeline: So, is 870 to 1800 fine? (not 1789 as this isn't mean to be exact) Then I would be very fine with the lower civs:

Map idea:
See map page before with added Egyptian coast, Jerusalem, Damascus and Cyprus.

With your ideas:
Western Europe
France
England
Celts -> Scotland-Ireland
Netherlands
Burgundy

Iberian Peninsula
Castille -> Spain
Portugal
Andalusia/Cordoba/Almoravids

North & Central Europe
Norse (Danes -> Calmar -> Sweden)
Holy Roman Empire (with vassalised other states to begin...)
Poland-Lithuania
Austria/House of Habsburg
Switzerland

Eastern Europe
Eastern Roman Empire
Moscovy -> Russia
Hungary
Ottoman Empire
Abbasids -> Fatimids -> Mamluckes

Italy
Papal States
Venetia
Lombard League

Independents
Independents (Kiev, Italian cities, Valencia, "balcan cities")

Makes 22 civs if I counted rightly, A "Ukrainian" based civ might be feasible, I'm no expert if place is there. What do you think. Can we get a decision of the dictator (Lead Manager of the Project ;-)).

- We do not have place for both Irish and Scottish, thus I'd rather have one civ and not *piss off* the Irish, same with the Scandies.
- Moscovy and Kiev, why not? but let's keep short on civs. If we can simulate them with independents I'd be fine. I would gladly kick out the independents if we wouldn't need them for collapsing civs (Or Barbs?)
- I added the "Arabs" again!
- The HRE starts with or is very prone to vassalize the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Lombard League depending on start date.

Timeline: So, is 870 to 1800 fine? (not 1789 as this isn't mean to be exact) Then I would be very fine with the lower civs:

Map idea:
See map page before with added Egyptian coast, Jerusalem, Damascus and Cyprus.

With your ideas:
Western Europe
France
England
Celts -> Scotland-Ireland
Netherlands
Burgundy

Iberian Peninsula
Castille -> Spain
Portugal
Andalusia/Cordoba/Almoravids

North & Central Europe
Norse (Danes -> Calmar -> Sweden)
Holy Roman Empire (with vassalised other states to begin...)
Poland-Lithuania
Austria/House of Habsburg
Switzerland

Eastern Europe
Eastern Roman Empire
Moscovy -> Russia
Hungary
Ottoman Empire
Abbasids -> Fatimids -> Mamluckes

Italy
Papal States
Venetia
Lombard League

Independents
Independents (Kiev, Italian cities, Valencia, "balcan cities")

Makes 22 civs if I counted rightly, A "Ukrainian" based civ might be feasible, I'm no expert if place is there. What do you think. Can we get a decision of the dictator (Lead Manager of the Project ;-)).

What about Wales? Or is it to be part of England? You might "piss off" a lot of Welsh people then! (Trust me, I know, as an Englishman living in Wales.)

Personally I'd like to see them put with the Scots and Irish (then thrown into space)... only joking!

What about Wales? Or is it to be part of England? You might "piss off" a lot of Welsh people then! (Trust me, I know, as an Englishman living in Wales.)

Personally I'd like to see them put with the Scots and Irish (then thrown into space)... only joking!

I actually meant that, I just not wrote it down...

mitsho, that seems like an excellent civ list. I give you my sanction, however much it is worth, for that to become official (tentatively).

OK, I must make something clear. This is a Modcomp and not a Modpack. Whilst it'd be wonderful to have a modpack for this, we're sticking to the RFC mod as closely as possible, meaning some of the ideas here can't really be implemented. This is Rhye's of Europe and not the Big Europe Scenario (or anything along those lines).

The fact remains that its going to cover ~1/2 the timespan of the tech tree in the same number of turns as we usually go through the entire tech tree. This is a problem if substantial new content isn't added.

As far as I'm concerned, RFC is about sticking close to history, and adding certain features (notably UHVs, UPs as distinct from leader traits, and plagues/stability). Anything which makes it stick closer to history is a bonus, not a problem, so long as we can manage to implement it.


Again, we're dealing very much with the question of how many major civs we can reasonably have without the game gumming up (RFC isn't well-known for rapidity in the late game anyway). Also, Squirrelloid, your civ list leaves out most of Germany, but otherwise seems to be the same as the one I've drafted.

On the one hand, HRE == Austria/Hapsburg. On the other hand, HRE is a title, not a civilization. I really liked the suggestion in the earlier thread that HRE be a title catholic civs can compete for.

Further, there isn't really much *in* germany. The Teutonic Order is the closest to a German power in the relevant time period as we're going to get. (That and Austria). It would be great if every barony in Germany could be a non-playable civ players could talk to, but that's a logistical impossibility.


I hate to sound like a spoilsport but we have to think about ease of implementation and ease of play, as well as the fact that this is made essentially for RFC, and that RFC was not made for this.

I don't think i've suggested anything that would make play harder. It might take longer to implement, but reworking the tech tree could be accomplished over time - it doesn't need to be accomplished instantaneously. It should just be done eventually.

And this is made to be like RFC but for europe, not to mimic everything RFC does when its focus is clearly very different. No one is objecting to changing UHVs because we have to. As will probably become apparent during development, in order to make it play/feel right adding to and modifying the tech tree is also going to be necessary to make it play/feel right. (I'd like to see a medieval period that predominantly features heavy cavalry for a change, thank you).

If you do anything more than this then it's going to be a different mod and you should think of another name and post in another forum IMO, to be correct towards Rhye's work and RFC's popularity.

As long as it has UHVs, plague/stability, and dynamic civ spawn, it'll feel like Rhye's, regardless of what else we add on to it. I can understand the arguments from simplicity solely for getting the thing going, but the nature of, for example, the tech tree, has no bearing on whether it'll feel like Rhye's or not. I mean, changing around the tech tree couldn't possibly make it feel any stranger than Rhye's reworking of the wonders. (Which was really bizarre when I first started playing RFC).


On another note, starting the mod in the merovingian period is a risk because what we know of this period is mostly a myth, also playing Clovis I means you would be playing the Frankish civ, not the French civ.

... The Merovingian Dynasty is generally regarded as the first dynasty of france and ruled over an area that was definitively within france as it exists today. Whether you want to count Charlemagne as a french king or not is your perogative, but he does start the Carolignian dynasty of France, which notably runs all the way to Louis XVI. If you want to count his rule as being something different, fine, but to disqualify Clovis as "french" because of it is like saying we can't have a Polish civ because they spent much of the 19th century conquered by someone else. The franks just became the french. (Heck, we even refer to the language they spoke as old french).


Civ List

I think you guys are forgetting the nature of RFC, specifically of the rise and fall of civs. It would be better to start thinking of how many civs at once we want to be playable (especially important for the multiplayer), once we know this we can determine which are playable, which are minor, and when should they spawn etc.

So where are the problems in my civ list? Would you like me to list spawn dates for all of them too? (I might have some trouble in Eastern Europe and Italy, but the rest? no problem). And all of them would be playable simultaneously if it came to that.

@Other Civ Lists:
I really don't think Ireland/Scotland deserve to be a playable civ. They're really ultimately most significant as part of an English -> British civ; heck, GB was ruled by a Scottish king for awhile. Some dynamic civ names (England -> Great Britain) would cover them just fine. I suppose I'd entertain arguments why they deserve to be their own civ, cause i'm not seeing it. (I do see England having a lot of problems with Independent city-states until they conquer the British Isles, and that's probably the best way to handle them).

I also really object to HRE as a civ. Its not. Its a title (see above). And having HRE and Austria at the same time will be really confusing. Teutonic Knights really are the unified Germanic power of this period outside of the House of Hapsburg/Austria.

No objections to Switzerland or Serbia (though it looks like Serbia got the whack in the last cutting).

I'm a little confused as to why Genoa gets so much hate. They were one of the most significant Italian city-states, and Venetia's major rival for control of commerce in the Med. Though I suppose I don't really care one way or the other if its Genoa or Lombard League.

And what's wrong with Occitania as an independent? It was more culturally developed than France until France convinced the Pope to call a crusade down on them. The only reason it doesn't suggest a playable civ is the same problem as Germany - lack of unification means it really needs to be a bunch of city-states.

So, ignoring independents for the moment, that gives me my initial civ list with mitsho's dynamic name progressions + switzerland, or Mitsho's list without the Celts and using Teutonic instead of HRE. (Ie, Mitsho and my list differ by Switzerland, Teutonic vs. HRE, Celts, and Lombard vs. Genoa). Which gives us 20 civs and 2 independent slots - easily room for Serbia or Ukraine or something else someone wants to make a case for.

Should be discussed:
Celts - yea or nay? If yea, why should they be included? What makes them worthy of being a playable civ and not just independents.

HRE vs. Teutonic vs. other - What's wrong with Teutonic Order as the Germanic civ? Isn't HRE already represented? (Austria/Hapsburg). Wouldn't HRE make a better title that can be awarded by the AP (or some other way), as it was historically? I suppose instead of Teutonic, we could do a Germanic States and have their UP be the Power of the Electorate, and toss this 'needs to be unified' criteria out the window. The leader should be Frederick Barbarossa. (and i probably spelled that wrong). It deserves mentioning that there is no good way to cause the 30 years war to happen since we simply can't make that many German civs, so accepting that they weren't really unified and letting them be a civ anyway may be the best policy. Thoughts?

I think we're actually really close to a civ list. Now I just need to go peruse how many of those UHVs have proposals from the previous incarnation of this project.

We don't need to be historically accurate completely, we must remember that gameplay is more important. "Ease of play", by the way, was directed at Disenfranchised and actually referred to the computer's ability to process it and so on.

The tech tree will probably be added to, and the modern and ancient eras taken off. (Probably a few civ type-specific techs too, like techs only available to Eastern Europe, or to the Ottomans and Mameluks.) However it won't be reworked totally and neither shall the game's features.

HRE should not be a title supplied in the Apostolic Palace, because Catholic civs like Spain and France should not be able to gain control of the HRE. The HRE should be a civ stationed in Germany, eliminating the need for an independent for each barony. I'm suspicious about the Teutonic Order because the actual nation of the Teutonic Order was rather small comparatively and was almost proto-Prussia. The HRE can then fragment as the game progresses.

I would like to remove the Celts to allow for either Prussia or Serbia. I'm sticking to my comments that Scotland and Ireland were not that important to be honest in the course of European history: not so much as to mean they should be played civs at any rate.

Should be discussed:
Celts - yea or nay? If yea, why should they be included? What makes them worthy of being a playable civ and not just independents.

If you make them the Celts and unplayable, you might as well make them independents (saves one slot!). That's why I proposed them together. But we can scrap it, although I think some would love to play them?

HRE vs. Teutonic vs. other - What's wrong with Teutonic Order as the Germanic civ? Isn't HRE already represented? (Austria/Hapsburg). Wouldn't HRE make a better title that can be awarded by the AP (or some other way), as it was historically? I suppose instead of Teutonic, we could do a Germanic States and have their UP be the Power of the Electorate, and toss this 'needs to be unified' criteria out the window. The leader should be Frederick Barbarossa. (and i probably spelled that wrong). It deserves mentioning that there is no good way to cause the 30 years war to happen since we simply can't make that many German civs, so accepting that they weren't really unified and letting them be a civ anyway may be the best policy. Thoughts?

Friedrich Babarossa is correctly spelt. ;) The Teutonic Order is for me just too minor (it didn't last nor ressurect as it had no 'population' basis in its region) and much more important, it is too far East. I'd like to have *something* in Germany, although I am not quite sure what... I thus like your Germanic States option. The Thirty years War can be made by a Austria/Habsburg versus Germanic States then... ;) What do you think of assembling the civs of Northern Italy, NEtherlands, CH, Austria and Germanic states together losely somehow (HOW?)

And what's wrong with Occitania as an independent? It was more culturally developed than France until France convinced the Pope to call a crusade down on them. The only reason it doesn't suggest a playable civ is the same problem as Germany - lack of unification means it really needs to be a bunch of city-states.

Well, I just thought that they could be grouped together with the "normal" independents... ;-) and as you guessed I didn't think so far that OCcitania existed as a Civilization...

Serbia seems to have been taken out
Serbia (& Bulgaria) "quickly" succumbed to the Ottoman Empire and were quite weak regarding the Byzantines. If we look at the scope of the scenario, we see that they don't ressurect or only late (even if we go towards 1918!). This might of course be too much of historical determinism (as Greece is allowed to rise and not Serbia/Bulgaria?). Depending on the map however, the power base of the Ottomans will be the Balcans, so there are more things against Serbia than in favour of it.

I rather keep the place for "Kiev".

Genoa versus Lombards
Simply, Genoa is less famous than Venezia and there is probably the feeling there needs to be something land-based in Northern ITaly (HRE!). Both work imho and offer good possibilities.


So, m

@mitsho: You'll insult them more by lumping them together ;). But Scotland was a unified political state that had influence on the european stage, something ireland, due to to its disunity never had (dispite its cultural influence).


Makes 22 civs if I counted rightly, A "Ukrainian" based civ might be feasible, I'm no expert if place is there. What do you think. Can we get a decision of the dictator (Lead Manager of the Project ;-)).

Kiev is in the Ukraine :confused:? And the Kieven Rus were quite influential.

@Squirrelloid, re: Genoa: its also a question of interest - Genua would be sea-orientated civ in italy conceptual space taken by Venice which was more powerful and well known - easier to encorperate it into a Northern Italian overarching thing like the Lombards to give a different playing experience from Venice.
re; The Tuetonic order for a north german civ, why not instead have a north german civ that goes:
Northern March (Nordmark)->Brandenberg->Prussia

If we are listing independents at this stage I would like to put up:
-Novgorod
-Aragon
-Danzig
-Bohemia:Prague
-Cymru:Carmarthen
-Brittany:Brest
-Ireland:Galway & Dungannon

Italian Civs:

the Lombard League can't be a serious candidate for a Civ... and I think the Papal States should not be playable, nor should any civ attack them unless special events.
The only possible italian "civs" I can think of are:

- Venice
- Reign of Naples & Sicily
- House of Savoy

But I would probably leave out the third unless there's some gap that really needs to be filled.


edit: remember that Lombardy was practically never an indipendent entity, you don't need to feel obliged to invent a civ just to cover a one/two-cities territory. It can be under the control of the HRE, Habsburg, Papal States or even Venice.

The Merovingian Dynasty is generally regarded as the first dynasty of france and ruled over an area that was definitively within france as it exists today. Whether you want to count Charlemagne as a french king or not is your perogative, but he does start the Carolignian dynasty of France, which notably runs all the way to Louis XVI.

I was talking of the Merovingian dinasty and not the Carolingian one. Btw the Merovingi originate from the Germanic Area. And their capital was in the Germanic Area. And Clovis was a FRANK. The fact that they started conquering part of France and that Charlemagne completed this conquest shouldn't suggest that the Franks are the same thing as the French.

I know I'm skipping a bit, but my friend gave me an interesting idea:

How about an Apostolic Palace resolution to call for an Inquisition? This would give a certain chance for each Catholic city to have other religions erased, but +1 unhappiness in all these city.

I was talking of the Merovingian dinasty and not the Carolingian one. Btw the Merovingi originate from the Germanic Area. And their capital was in the Germanic Area. And Clovis was a FRANK. The fact that they started conquering part of France and that Charlemagne completed this conquest shouldn't suggest that the Franks are the same thing as the French.

Having just refreshed my memory on that period of history, i'll note that the capitol of the frankish realm (when it was united), as established by Clovis I, was Paris.

The Frankish realm was "centered" on Neustria and Austrasia. Neustria is entirely contained within modern France. Austrasia does contain some of what is definitively Germany now, but also contains land which has historically been contested (eg, Alsaace). The other major component of the Frankish realm was Aquitaine, which is also notably french (although that nationality is a renaissance era development). (With dynamic civ names, we could even start them as the Kingdom of Neustria).

As a people, their cultural history is best remembered and celebrated in France (in part because of how tied up they are in the history of Paris). France claims them culturally. That suggests they deserve to belong to a French Civ in this context.

Also, saying Franks can't be thought of as part of the french civ is like saying Anglo-saxons can't be considered English. (Or possibly Normans can't be considered English - take your pick). And my point with Charlemagne was that he's the only ruler who's clearly not 'just' a "french frank" (ruled "France") of what could otherwise be construed as a politically continuous "french" realm. (The Merovingian -> Carolignian transition not actually representing a real political break). Ok, one of two rulers; his son Louis the Pious is arguably not 'just' french either. But after him the empire fractures and we have a "french" political entity.

Aha, you are right about saying that Clovis chose Paris as a capital. But the Franks originated from the Germanic Area (I'm including modern day Netherlands), from there they expanded into Gallia, modern day France. The argument that their reign included modern day France is a bit weak, the Roman Empire also did it. I'm not saying that French can't be considered part of the Frankish history and culture, I'm saying that the opposite can't be true, so you can't call Clovis king of the French because he wasn't, the French would arise as a sovereign kingdom only later, due to the succession law that Clovis himself invented (the Salic Law).

If you make them the Celts and unplayable, you might as well make them independents (saves one slot!). That's why I proposed them together. But we can scrap it, although I think some would love to play them?

I suppose lumping all the independents together is fine. (See also: Occitania).


Friedrich Babarossa is correctly spelt. ;) The Teutonic Order is for me just too minor (it didn't last nor ressurect as it had no 'population' basis in its region) and much more important, it is too far East. I'd like to have *something* in Germany, although I am not quite sure what... I thus like your Germanic States option. The Thirty years War can be made by a Austria/Habsburg versus Germanic States then... ;) What do you think of assembling the civs of Northern Italy, NEtherlands, CH, Austria and Germanic states together losely somehow (HOW?)

The more I think about it, the more I like a Germanic States option. Its what RFC seems to do basically (though its painting so broadly that its the obvious solultion at that scale), and seems to be the most manageable solution without being silly. (Prussia in a game ending ~1800? snicker).

I'm not sure what you mean by "assembling".

Actually, having military alliances (a la civ III) would be very useful. I don't know why they removed those.

Also, we need to make the computer more willing to make deals with the human player. Part of what will make RoE feel like Europe is plenty of shifting alliances and multi-nation wars. But in RFC this is really hard to achieve since the computer just generally hates you and can be impossible to get to declare war on someone, even a typical enemy (germany on france - i've been trying to as Spain in a current game to no effect). Having the computer forget that you declared war on them in a more timely basis would really help, and would definitely improve the historicity of changing alliances of convenience and necessity that mark european history. (Civ III seemed much better for Machiavellian-style political play, whereas CivIV has a very idealized modern approach to political relations which I find rather annoying much of the time, especially when trying to simulate historical events).


Serbia (& Bulgaria) "quickly" succumbed to the Ottoman Empire and were quite weak regarding the Byzantines. If we look at the scope of the scenario, we see that they don't ressurect or only late (even if we go towards 1918!). This might of course be too much of historical determinism (as Greece is allowed to rise and not Serbia/Bulgaria?). Depending on the map however, the power base of the Ottomans will be the Balcans, so there are more things against Serbia than in favour of it.

I rather keep the place for "Kiev".

I just remember seeing it in your original list (i think it was yours), and my knowledge of the balkans being somewhat scant in the early stages of this period, i thought you knew something i didn't. No objections from me, honestly. I'm at least as happy with Kiev as I would be with Serbia.


Simply, Genoa is less famous than Venezia and there is probably the feeling there needs to be something land-based in Northern ITaly (HRE!). Both work imho and offer good possibilities.

The problem with Northern Italy is I'm having a hard time thinking of any serious political powers that were land-based. Much of the time they were dominated by someone else. After Venetia, Genoa really is the obvious Italian power. And for the sake of game balance Genoa + Venetia serves the same purpose as having both Portugal and Netherlands in RFC. (Ultimately, Portugal and Netherlands are tiny countries which did really well during the colonial period and thus exhibit similar but competitive gameplay. Similarly, Genoa and Venetia had similar goals, and competed in a similar arena, and will have to outdo the other to ultimately succeed).

In order to get other countries interested in Northern Italy, it should possibly be within the "historic territory" of a number of nations, and the AI weighted towards conquering it (or at least willing to consider the option). Actually... conquering Northern Italy could get you awarded the HRE title if you're catholic and friendly to the Papal States, which *would* mimic history very nicely. (If you're not friendly to the Papal States, they should award the title to their most powerful friend instead, who should then be highly likely to attack you in Northern Italy).

New business on the Germanic States: Should they start at the collapse of Charlemagne's empire (ie, 840ish), or earlier, possibly as the Kingdom of Austrasia. (With the French starting as the Kingdom of Neustria). The second option would give us another starting civ. In addition to Frederick Barbarossa, an early start as the kingdom of Austrasia means we could stick in someone like Charles Martel as a ruler as well. (Charlemagne needs to not belong to any one civ... I have some ideas on how to "simulate" his empire in game, but that can wait until later). Early French-German (I mean Neustrian-Austrasian) fighting could make for entertaining gameplay, and would mimic the Merovingian period rather well, actually.

A provisional list of civs, warts and all, with some suggested civs, has been added to the original post. This is by no means definitive, and most likely a lot of civs will be removed and a lot added.

Aha, you are right about saying that Clovis chose Paris as a capital. But the Franks originated from the Germanic Area (I'm including modern day Netherlands), from there they expanded into Gallia, modern day France. The argument that their reign included modern day France is a bit weak, the Roman Empire also did it. I'm not saying that French can't be considered part of the Frankish history and culture, I'm saying that the opposite can't be true, so you can't call Clovis king of the French because he wasn't, the French would arise as a sovereign kingdom only later, due to the succession law that Clovis himself invented (the Salic Law).

Yes, they came from the east somewhere, who knows where originally. Guess what, so did the Spanish. The people who were Franks in Neustria under Clovis I would be the ancestors of the people who would be French in the same area. This is more than sufficient to consider them unified for a civ. You'll also note France takes its name from the Franks. Clovis also chose to be buried in Paris as opposed to Tournai (where his father and other previous merovingian kings were buried), a notable shift. Tournai, while in modern Belgium, was part of France when "France" was first used to designate a political entity (in 987 AD), and is barely inside Belgium today (in a region that is french speaking). Arguably, Clovis and his forefathers are from lands that are as french as anything. (It wouldn't become belgian until conquered by Charles V of Spain, and would become french again from 1668 to 1713).

Tournai was also part of West Francia, which is generally considered a direct precursor to France. (Notably, Charles II as numbered by France was the first king of West Francia).

Also, from Wikipaedia:
"Austrasia formed the north-eastern portion of the Kingdom of the Merovingian Franks, comprising parts of the territory of present-day eastern France, western Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands"

"The territory of Neustria or Neustrasia, meaning "new [western] land", originated in 511, made up of the regions from Aquitaine to the English Channel, approximating most of the north of present-day France, with Paris and Soissons as its main cities."

(Note, this means the Frankish kingdom was predominantly composed of french lands, even before we count Aquitaine).

Yeah yeah, i know i'm posting a lot, i just thought i'd throw up some start dates for the likely civs on the proposed list.

Note, I'm assuming a start date of 500 AD. Start dates are in parentheses, with multiple dates given for multiple names marking the approximate date of transition. (In some cases it might be better to do name transitions based on cities held, especially ones like England -> Great Britain).

By region:
Western Europe
Kingdom of Neustria (500 AD) -> West Francia (840 AD) -> France (990 AD)
England (500 AD) -> Great Britain (1700 AD or by cities held?) -> United Kingdom (1800 AD or by cities held?)
Netherlands (uh... 1580 AD?)
Burgundy (500 AD)

Iberian Peninsula
Kingdom of Asturias (720 AD) -> Leon (920 AD) -> Crown of Castile (1230 AD) -> Empire of Spain (1520 AD)
Portugal (1100 AD)
Al-Andalus (700 AD)

North & Central Europe
Norse: Danes (500 AD) -> Calmar -> Sweden)
Kingdom of Austrasia (500 AD) -> East Francia (840 AD) -> Kingdom of Germany (920 AD) -> Germanic States (1260 AD)
Lechia (970 AD) -> Poland (???) -> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1570 AD)
Austria/House of Habsburg (1160 AD or 1280 AD)
Old Swiss Confederacy (1290 AD) -> Switzerland (1650 AD?)

Eastern Europe
Eastern Roman Empire (500 AD)
Kiev (860 AD?) -> Ukraine? (???)
Republic of Novgorod (860 AD) -> Grand Duchy of Moscow (1150 AD?) -> Russia (1500 AD)
Magyars (900 AD) -> Kingdom of Hungary (1000 AD)
Ottoman Empire (1300 AD)
Umayyad Caliphate (660 AD) -> Abbasid Caliphate (750 AD) -> Fatimid Caliphate (970 AD) -> Ayyubid Dynasty (1170 AD) -> Mamluk Sultanate (1250 AD)

Italy
Papal States (500 AD)
Republic of Venetia (800 AD)
XXX (Lombard League? Republic of Genoa (1000AD)? Something orange?)

Independents

By date:
500 AD (7 starting, 8 total)
-Kingdom of Neustria (500 AD) -> West Francia (840 AD) -> France (990 AD)
-England (500 AD) -> Great Britain (1700 AD or by cities held?)
-Burgundy (500 AD)
-Norse: Danes (500 AD) -> Calmar -> Sweden)
-Kingdom of Austrasia (500 AD) -> East Francia (840 AD) -> Kingdom of Germany (920 AD) -> Germanic States (1260 AD)
-Eastern Roman Empire (500 AD)
-Papal States (500 AD)
-Umayyad Caliphate (660 AD) -> Abbasid Caliphate (750 AD) -> Fatimid Caliphate (970 AD) -> Ayyubid Dynasty (1170 AD) -> Mamluk Sultanate (1250 AD)

700 AD (5 total)
-Al-Andalus (700 AD)
-Kingdom of Asturias (720 AD) -> Leon (920 AD) -> Crown of Castile (1230 AD) -> Empire of Spain (1520 AD)
-Republic of Venetia (800 AD)
-Kiev (860 AD?) -> Ukraine? (???)
-Republic of Novgorod (860 AD) -> Grand Duchy of Moscow (1150 AD?) -> Russia (1500 AD)

900 AD (2 total)
-Magyars (900 AD) -> Kingdom of Hungary (1000 AD)
-Lechia (970 AD) -> Poland (???) -> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1570 AD)

1100 AD+ (5 total)
-Portugal (1100 AD)
-Austria/House of Habsburg (1160 AD or 1280 AD)
-Old Swiss Confederacy (1290 AD) -> Switzerland (1650 AD?)
-Ottoman Empire (1300 AD)
-Netherlands (uh... 1580 AD?)

+1 Unspecified Italian City-State

Notes:
England should start with the Saxon invasion of Briton held England (Independent cities), and thus 500 AD is a great time for them to start. (In 495 AD the Britons repulsed Saxon invaders, who would soon make further attempts. Unfortunately, its impossible to nail down an exact timescale, but the Saxon invasion is clearly (re)starting in the 6th century).

I honestly don't know when to start the Netherlands as a civ. One reasonable approach is to start them at 1580 when they declared independence from Phillip II of Spain. Prior to that they were either possessions of the Holy Roman Empire or Burgundy. I really don't know why RFC starts them ~980 - knowing why Rhye chose then would be immensely helpful.

Burgundy has remarkable consistency of name over its history. It could be briefly transformed into Middle Francia, but it would be so brief and sandwiched between Burgundy on both sides that it doesn't seem worthwhile. (Note the ownership of Northern Italy is tied up in that possible name transition - an ownership which is rather complicated in the relevant historical period).

Finding the right name for "Spain" is remarkably hard. I chose to start with the Kingdom of Asturias as the first christian entity in Iberia, and proceeded to its most important successor Leon. (Imagine the accent marks, please). The eventual union of Castile and Leon led to the creation of the Crown of Castile, which is the actual name of that political entity. Finally, I date "Spain" as a name to the reign of Charles I (of Spain) aka Charles V HRE, because he's the first person to actually rule both Castile and Aragon.

I chose 1100 AD for Portugal as that is approximately when it declared independence from Leon.

Al-Andalus is conveniently a name used by the Islamic world in period to refer to the Iberian peninsula. Rather than try to track all the various Islamic political entities which ruled or vaguely ruled the area, its probably best to use just the one name.

I need help on Russia. In particular, if we're going to include Kiev (and i'm mildly inclined to), I really need help lining up appropriate transitions. Moscow doesn't become important until after the Mongol hordes have pounded Kiev into the dust, and Kiev seems to have been culturally distinct from more northern Rus settlements, which is why I'm considering Moscow a successor of the Novgorod Republic. This might be horribly wrong, and Wikipaedia isn't being especially useful. Someone who knows something?

Similarly, the Wikipaedia Poland history isn't especially useful in helping me identify contemporary names for the region currently known as Poland. This is not the area of Europe i'm especially familiar with, which means what i've listed is just a vague outline.

We have a choice on Austria. The first date I give is its elevation to Duchy status. The second date I give is approximately when the Habsburgs become the ruling dynasty. Clearly if we go with the name House of Habsburgs, we should use the second date.

I'm dating the name Switzerland to their gaining legal independence from the HRE. Someone with better knowledge could correct me.

Hungary *could* start as the Kingdom of the Avars in 600 AD, but probably not especially appropriate since those are a totally different people. I date the name Hungary to the coronation of Stephen I. Note the capitol should be Esztergom.

Muslim dynasties in the middle east are complicated by the fact that the Fatimids didn't actually replace the Abbasids, they competed with them. However, the Abbasids do get pushed completely off any map of Europe we're likely to use. Also note that I date the start of the Fatimid Caliphate from the founding of Cairo (which becomes their capitol), they actually start 60 years earlier in Tunisia. Also note that we may want to prune this list of names, but that does represent the relevant islamic power on our map during the relevant periods. (The Mamluk Sultanate was ended by the Ottomans in 1517, something that may get repeated in game)

I'm dating Venetia to its independence from the Eastern Roman Empire (ie, the Pax Nicephori in 803).

I've put a date on Genoa because that was easy.

With assembly I meant making the vassal relationships more easy so that we have one "state" with some states. Another way would be permanent alliances, but we need to be able to break them up again... ;-) The same problem exists if we have Austrasia and Neustria... ;)

A problem with Burgundy: It starts as the "third" part of the Frank Empire, then gets integrated into the HRE and restarts after the Staufer ceased to exist, but a little bit to the North. We can still keep it though ;)

Proposal (for starters, will eventually continue)

~700 AD
Franks (UHV I: control the extent of Charlemagne Empire)
Al-Andalus
(Eastern) Roman Empire
Norse

~870 AD
Germanic State (Why not call it HRE? it breaks up Franks)
Venezia
Castille

~

i'm going to second the inclusion of kiev/kievan rus/golden horde over serbia, as well. while that area (essentially a smaller version of modern ukraine) changed hands regularly through our historical period, it maintained a fairly consistent population and cluster of cities throughout. additionally, the ruler of that area wielded some serious economic power - both through the east while the silk road was disrupted by the crusades, and through the north, with most russian furs, timber, and rampaging vikings going south down the don and volga. you can make the argument that it was the largest buffer state between major powers, but the major cities at least had some tradition of independence. i'd prefer to see it united as one civ rather than as an independent, but it would make sense for them to have to contend with frequent and serious barbarian invasions.

if we're doing the maghreb, don't we have to have someone controlling it? do we use a generic caliphate, or make them tied to the muslim state of andalusia/cordoba? do they get jerusalem and damascus?

The Almorahid and Almoravid power bases went over to both continents. Although the Emirat of Cordoba did not control the Morroccon cities (these were sometimes independent or incorporated into Maghrebinian Emirats who had close ties to Andalusian courts), the area (MAghreb & Al-andalus) was one area of "culture" and trade. So it makes sense to group them together. The area should nevertheless not be too large...

This way, the Andalusian civ remains and will not ressurect ahistorically ;) (Please let's have a rather small map)

m

So, as some posts have appeared since i started my quest to try to put start dates on all the civs... its done now, with lots of notes. Go, look, comment, yell at me for being stupid. But that should be a reasonable framework to start a discussion.

I agree about not having the HRE. German States is better in my mind (sure they weren't unified, but neither was Ancient Greece) or just German Nation.

Tuetonic Knights could be a forerunner of Prussia, if you want to include them, and want to see them nice and early.

Celts, maybe as unplayable, but they had little impat and a grand scale, and I suspect Great Britain would be unified very quickly.

The Papal States I would make un-playable, and if possible give them near absolute control over the AP. Another thing I would make it so that if a nation attempts to invade The Papal States a state of war is created with all Catholic civs, or at least completely destroy their relations. At the same time I qould heavily discourage the Papal States starting wars.

Would you want to include the Seljuk Turks or just Ottomans?

What about the Mongols? Just hordes of barbarians, of a civ?

With assembly I meant making the vassal relationships more easy so that we have one "state" with some states. Another way would be permanent alliances, but we need to be able to break them up again... ;-) The same problem exists if we have Austrasia and Neustria... ;)

A problem with Burgundy: It starts as the "third" part of the Frank Empire, then gets integrated into the HRE and restarts after the Staufer ceased to exist, but a little bit to the North. We can still keep it though ;)


So, here's my thoughts on Charlemagne's empire:

At the appropriate point everyone gets an event announcement that Charlemagne has unified the Franks. For Neustria, Austrasia, and Burgundy this means that peace is immediately declared between them, and war cannot be instigated again until the end of the Charlemagne event (presumably lasting until 840 AD). Alternately, the event could give those three a choice, peace (Charlemagne and his son rule uncontested), or war with both other Carolignian provinces (support a son in rebellion). That would basically establish Charlemagne as overlord of three civs, which is mildly historically accurate (he did give his sons kingdoms within his empire). It might also lead to other events (Charlemagne declares war on the Emirs of Al-Andalusia -> you're forced to declare war; Charlemagne asks for aid in defeating the Lombards -> you can give troops (lose units), or you can send your own army (reward for capturing an (independent) Lombard city, relations penalty with other Carolignian civs if you fail to have at least one combat with an independent unit in Northern Italy), or possibly other options). Basically make Charlemagne a series of scripted events for the relevant civs.

Currently a work in progress...

Western Europe
Kingdom of Neustria (500 AD) -> West Francia (840 AD) -> France (990 AD)
England (500 AD) -> Great Britain (1700 AD or by cities held?) -> United Kingdom (1800 AD or by cities held?)
Netherlands (uh... 1580 AD?)
Burgundy (500 AD)

Iberian Peninsula
Kingdom of Asturias (720 AD) -> Leon (920 AD) -> Crown of Castile (1230 AD) -> Empire of Spain (1520 AD)
Portugal (1100 AD)
Al-Andalus (700 AD)

North & Central Europe
Norse: Danes (500 AD) -> Calmar -> Sweden)
Kingdom of Austrasia (500 AD) -> East Francia (840 AD) -> Kingdom of Germany (920 AD) -> Germanic States (1260 AD)
Lechia (970 AD) -> Poland (???) -> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1570 AD)
Austria/House of Habsburg (1160 AD or 1280 AD)
Old Swiss Confederacy (1290 AD) -> Switzerland (1650 AD?)

Eastern Europe
Eastern Roman Empire (500 AD)
Kiev (860 AD?) -> Ukraine? (???)
Republic of Novgorod (860 AD) -> Grand Duchy of Moscow (1150 AD?) -> Russia (1500 AD)
Magyars (900 AD) -> Kingdom of Hungary (1000 AD)
Ottoman Empire (1300 AD)
Umayyad Caliphate (660 AD) -> Abbasid Caliphate (750 AD) -> Fatimid Caliphate (970 AD) -> Ayyubid Dynasty (1170 AD) -> Mamluk Sultanate (1250 AD)

Italy
Papal States (500 AD)
Republic of Venetia (800 AD)
XXX (Lombard League? Republic of Genoa (1000AD)? Something orange?)

Independents

1) I like your set up

2) If I look at your dates, I wonder wether 500 AD really makes sense. REal Action just starts at ~750 Ad which would be a fair compromise, wouldn't it?

3) Netherlands: Wikipedia (yeah) says the HRE lost influence in the 11 and 12th century, which also corresponds with the rise of these trading cities there (Antwerpen, wool, etc. ...) if I recall correctly. They then get conquered by Burgundy. Perfectly fine to start them around that time 1050 as for example "Flanders" which goes in the same direction of generalization as before seen.

4) Burgundy really needs an interesting part of transition: Being founded 870 as part and then central and surviving part of the middle empire, around 1000 AD it gets (finally) corporated into the HRE (= vassal status), loses more and more territorry and then reemerges in different fashion as the house of Burgundy with a bit different territorial basis (including the lowlands). Though worthwile!

5)If we have RFC, we can see Novgorod as a predecessor of Moscovy... I just saw that we need to make the Norse really strong if they should first be a larg player in the West (Britain, Normandy, Raids) and then or at same time expand also to Russia (and Sicily and constantinople) and afterwards into Germany and Poland... Perhaps a separation would make sense nevertheless?


6) Austria: first date! Switzerland 1290 &1650 are perfectly fine Hungary: Please no Avars... ;) "Arabs": Agreed -> Question of Maghreb (esp. Fatimids?) Venetia & Genoa: Agreed, though Venetia could start a bit later; Milan/Firenze (aka Lombard League) about same time as Genoa.

7)@say 1988 Papal States were a state like any other, it fought wars, suffered Saracenic attackers, grabbed land et al... Canossa is a good example or lather Julius II. Read a bit about that "pope". The Sacco di Roma was not for nothing... I say, make them playable... ; Mongols: They were too little time on the stage of European history, although they had a huge impact they can be represented by Barbs (culturally ;)) same goes with Timurs/Tamerlanes hordes. ; Ottomans are sufficient for our scenario, Seljuk turks would be the same, and we already have Turks with the Mamluckes.

Non-quoted points are well-taken. I just wanted to comment on a few of them.


2) If I look at your dates, I wonder wether 500 AD really makes sense. REal Action just starts at ~750 Ad which would be a fair compromise, wouldn't it?

500 AD is really the start of a european identity separate from Roman culture. I mean, we have the start of the Saxon invasion of England in that ballpark, the very earliest beginnings of what will eventually be France and Germany, and the Eastern Roman Empire at arguably the height of its power, which is plenty of action for the early game. I mean, we'll get to see a rise of Islam and an "Invasion" of Visigothic (Independent) Spain with a 500 AD start, something a 750 AD start misses. Heck, with 7 starting civs at 500 AD, that's a lot of possible action. And another 3 civs would join the fun before 750 AD ("Spain", Al-Andalusia, "Arabia"). And 750 is a really arbitrary year, as it doesn't really correspond to anything, and is after important formative events in medieval europe like the Battle of Poitiers (which checked the islamic advance in what would become France, 732 I believe). 500 AD approximately correlates with Clovis I unifying the Franks. (It'll fall apart in like 1 civ turn worth of time, but hey, it was an important formative event in european history).

Besides, if you want "Real Action" by 750 AD, you need to start people out ahead of that - most games feature the early turns as relatively boring as people tech and build infrastructure, or possibly prepare for war. But the "real action" really does start in 500 AD with Clovis conquering rival Frank tribes.


4) Burgundy really needs an interesting part of transition: Being founded 870 as part and then central and surviving part of the middle empire, around 1000 AD it gets (finally) corporated into the HRE (= vassal status), loses more and more territorry and then reemerges in different fashion as the house of Burgundy with a bit different territorial basis (including the lowlands). Though worthwile!

Burgundy is actually a separate mostly autonomous province going back to before the reign of Clovis I. Clovis I fought a number of wars with them. Yeah, it gets eventually incorporated into the Frankish Empire, see previous post on how I think Charlemagne should be handled. Outside the Eastern Roman Empire and Papal States, it may actually be the oldest identifiable political entity we're considering for the scenario.

sounds good. both of your points taken. battle shall continue tomorrow on new grounds. What is next? UHV/UP/Starting date or the map so that we can start to work and stop to talk? (In the end, the details don't matter all that much, it's the game)

Good night, ;) m

sounds good. both of your points taken. battle shall continue tomorrow on new grounds. What is next? UHV/UP/Starting date or the map so that we can start to work and stop to talk? (In the end, the details don't matter all that much, it's the game)

Good night, ;) m

I think that before we start talking about UHVs and UPs we need to hammer out some game concepts. In particular:

(1) How do we want the AP to work?

(2) How do we want the HRE title to work?

(3) What role do we imagine for religion in this mod? What religions do we want and what changes do we want to make to how religions operate?

(4) How exactly do we want colonies to work? How many colonies should we have?

(5) What possible victory conditions should be available? (I believe I made suggestions previously.)

(6) Do we want to use the current civics options? Are there substitutions we'd like to make? (Choices that are inappropriate to the eras/region of the scenario?)

(7) Other?

Some of those might suggest UHV goals or UPs. It would certainly make the game presentation feel more unified rather than feeling like various elements were just tacked on.

The only thing I do know about UHVs is I want one of the Netherlands be to control England by 1700. Because they did! =) (William III of England = William III of Orange).

the teutonic knights were one suggestion for handling 'germany', but were rejected as being too small, not much of a nation per se, and too far east, right? would it make sense to represent them as a militarily powerful independent state around danzig/gdansk, with maybe one or two other cities under their control?

if germany starts as austrasia/east francia, that's in effect centering it about the rhine valley, which was historically more of a confederation of minor states. i agree that the holy roman empire should be unplayable, and like the idea of it being a title awarded by the AP. to reflect its status through most of the middle ages (a loose collective of small german baronies), what about the idea of having an unplayable HRE civ which suffers a preordained collapse into strong independents at around 1050, upon which germany appears as pomerania/prussia? this might shorten the game prohibitively for the german player, but it sets the goal of unification (rather than settlement of empty territory) up rather nicely, and makes it something of a challenge. it also means that the german player ends up with developed cities rather than a patchwork of small and underdeveloped ones. if pomerania is too location-specific, calling it the hanseatic league might work, although that was historically a little later and that's been mentioned as a possible wonder.




other ideas:
- i agree that civics need to be adjusted. squirreloid suggested getting rid of caste system as being historically inappropriate - what about replacing it with guilds/apprenticeship? same workshop bonus; similar effect? high upkeep?

-i feel like most of the government civics available are unrealistic for the era. can we shade 'feudalism' into several different, more specific civics, or would it be better simply to have fewer options available?

-i had originally envisioned colonies as projects or wonders, but the lack of luxury resources in europe (and the role that colonies played in bringing those to the home country) made me rethink it a bit. if we're not going to add in additional eurocentric luxuries such as amber or olives or linen, why not make certain luxuries available through colonies by coding colonies as corporations? just as standard ethanol gives access to oil, can we have 'east india company' give access to silk and tea (i'll suggest replacing one of the hits with tea and the other with tobacco, regardless of whether we add eurocentric luxuries or not)? 'virginia' give access to cotton, tobacco, indigo (dyes)? 'peru' or 'mexico' give access to gold, silver, and spices?

-if we run colonies as corporations, that gives us a logical limit to the number, and possibly even different historical incentives for each country based on resources or effects. as in BTS, access to colonies would flow from one tech (either colonization or joint stock company (we could even keep this as corporation!)) and specific colonies would become available upon the discovery of subsequent techs. this might make later tech races more interesting, particularly if we stick colonies into techs that the computer might otherwise find undesirable.

thoughts?

the teutonic knights were one suggestion for handling 'germany', but were rejected as being too small, not much of a nation per se, and too far east, right? would it make sense to represent them as a militarily powerful independent state around danzig/gdansk, with maybe one or two other cities under their control?

if germany starts as austrasia/east francia, that's in effect centering it about the rhine valley, which was historically more of a confederation of minor states. i agree that the holy roman empire should be unplayable, and like the idea of it being a title awarded by the AP. to reflect its status through most of the middle ages (a loose collective of small german baronies), what about the idea of having an unplayable HRE civ which suffers a preordained collapse into strong independents at around 1050, upon which germany appears as pomerania/prussia? this might shorten the game prohibitively for the german player, but it sets the goal of unification (rather than settlement of empty territory) up rather nicely, and makes it something of a challenge. it also means that the german player ends up with developed cities rather than a patchwork of small and underdeveloped ones. if pomerania is too location-specific, calling it the hanseatic league might work, although that was historically a little later and that's been mentioned as a possible wonder.

Of course, the Teutonic Order is basically where Prussia would be... I don't know man, I'm not the one who objected to it originally. I do sort of like having "germany" be as early as it being Austrasia to start with makes it, as i'm sure many people are unaware of Germany's origins in the early medieval period. (And of course there should be independents for the rest of Germany to start - Saxony is especially notable as having been a thorn in the Frankish kingdoms' sides.)


other ideas:
- i agree that civics need to be adjusted. squirreloid suggested getting rid of caste system as being historically inappropriate - what about replacing it with guilds/apprenticeship? same workshop bonus; similar effect? high upkeep?

-i feel like most of the government civics available are unrealistic for the era. can we shade 'feudalism' into several different, more specific civics, or would it be better simply to have fewer options available?

I want to think about civics some more before commenting definitively. One of the things I'm definitely unimpressed with in CivIV is how the categories don't really match up with what's in them. Ie, why is free speech not in the same category as police state (which is not a government mode but a comment on the freedom of information)? And so forth.


-i had originally envisioned colonies as projects or wonders, but the lack of luxury resources in europe (and the role that colonies played in bringing those to the home country) made me rethink it a bit. if we're not going to add in additional eurocentric luxuries such as amber or olives or linen, why not make certain luxuries available through colonies by coding colonies as corporations? just as standard ethanol gives access t