-Ijnavy, the Norse spawn area goes N rather than E so they'll flip Tonsberg. There's nothing comparable in Scania at that point, and they should have cities on both landmasses. Note that Sweden doesn't flip Scania either when it spawns, as it was more traditionally attached to Denmark.


From Wikipedia (not the most credible of sources, I know) regarding Uppåkra:

After having been burnt down, possibly by "Norwegians" in connection with power struggles between different magnates during the process of unification of Denmark, the town of Uppåkra was relocated to Lund in the 990s. Hence Uppåkra is held to be the direct predecessor of the city of Lund.
...
Archeological diggings of a 100 acres (0.40 km²) large field, intensified in 1996, shows Uppåkra to be the richest and largest Iron Age–Viking Age town of the Scandinavian Peninsula. For centuries, maybe for most of the first millennium, Uppåkra was a place of religious and political power as well as a big a cult place.

As Lund is my home town, I'll refrain from making a bigger case of including it. Just submitting my findings for discussion. ;)

From Wikipedia (not the most credible of sources, I know) regarding Uppåkra:

As Lund is my home town, I'll refrain from making a bigger case of including it. Just submitting my findings for discussion. ;)

I consider wikipedia to be pretty credible on this sort of thing, so no apologies or justifications required there.

I still lean towards Tonsberg for importance and to encourage the settlement of Norway, which might not happen otherwise. That land in Scania and Sweden will always be attractive for settlement, but we'll have to give the Norse some incentive to head W, and giving them a city up there seems like the most straightforward way to do it.

Also, starting out with Aarhus and Lund gives them a large population quickly, whcih could lead to some balance issues. Tonsberg will be harder to build from.

If you ask me there is more than enough room for lots of independents and colonizing. Even if you give everyone big spawn zones:

(image, see post #489)

-Black:Barb
-Grey: Germannics
-Brown: Slavic
-Pink: Mediterrean (since the eastern ones will flip quickly its really only the westerns that count).
-Dark Green: Celtic

My comments on the map are:

1- North Africa is quite empty (in number of civs). Which AI will colonize/conquer it ? North Africa wasn't under european control for most of the mod's scope, yet there is no civ starting there, and wether or not Al Andalus and Arabia will expand there is questionable. To this regard I'd move/swap the westernmost barbarian civ in N.A. into Andalusian spawn area (Tingis ?), so that having one city in North Africa will make them want expand there.

2- I really don't understand the purpouse of all those indipendents in central europe outside spawn areas, yet empty spawn areas. Purpouse ? Even less in Ireland, those towns were founded by Norsemen... In Eastern Europe, although the same argument applies, I suggest less indipendents anyways, to create a bit of variety/diversity in gameplay with western civs. IE I suggest eastern civs to start with more settlers than western and be more colonizing-oriented and less aggressive.

3- Burgundy shouldn't start there or its spawn area shouldn't be there. The burgundians were based more in the area of that indipendent city south west of their start. Making them start in that position creates a lot of problems, and is not correct, but if you really want it that way then make the spawn area stretch way more south. What's its purpouse btw ? Are we going to have civs resurrect in this modmod ? Otherwise having a spawn area that doesn't include starting towns doesn't serve much.

My comments on the map are:

1- North Africa is quite empty (in number of civs). Which AI will colonize/conquer it ? North Africa wasn't under european control for most of the mod's scope, yet there is no civ starting there, and wether or not Al Andalus and Arabia will expand there is questionable. To this regard I'd move/swap the westernmost barbarian civ in N.A. into Andalusian spawn area (Tingis ?), so that having one city in North Africa will make them want expand there.

2- I really don't understand the purpouse of all those indipendents in central europe outside spawn areas, yet empty spawn areas. Purpouse ? Even less in Ireland, those towns were founded by Norsemen... In Eastern Europe, although the same argument applies, I suggest less indipendents anyways, to create a bit of variety/diversity in gameplay with western civs. IE I suggest eastern civs to start with more settlers than western and be more colonizing-oriented and less aggressive.

3- Burgundy shouldn't start there or its spawn area shouldn't be there. The burgundians were based more in the area of that indipendent city south west of their start. Making them start in that position creates a lot of problems, and is not correct, but if you really want it that way then make the spawn area stretch way more south. What's its purpouse btw ? Are we going to have civs resurrect in this modmod ? Otherwise having a spawn area that doesn't include starting towns doesn't serve much.

1. The barb city in N. Africa is Tlemcen. Tangier and Fez are already in the spawn area for
Al Andalus. So that's 5 cities for them to start with in 700AD. Though Tlemcen could flip or
be captured early. More than enough I think. Cyrene/Barca and Tunis could be Byzantine from
the start as they were historically, so they'd be prizes for Al Andalus and the Arabs I think.

2. I see your point about the indys in Central Europe though the Balkans had already been
settled by Serbs and other Slavs as early as 500AD so having Beograd, Ragusa and Spalato
as indys or barbs isn't excessive esp. as Spalato will flip to Venice immediately. And I think
we'll only have Dublin in Ireland which we soon fall to Norse raiders anyway I expect.

3. Burgundy is a real problem though. I agree that they should spawn South and SE but wasn't
their capitol Aix-la Chappele (Aachen) at some point, which isn't far from Brussels? I think the
indy city is Lyon. I'd rather see them start 3 sqs. south on the lake so Geneva would be their
capitol. They could flip Lyon for their 2nd. city. IMO :)

My comments on the map are:

1- North Africa is quite empty (in number of civs). Which AI will colonize/conquer it ? North Africa wasn't under european control for most of the mod's scope, yet there is no civ starting there, and wether or not Al Andalus and Arabia will expand there is questionable. To this regard I'd move/swap the westernmost barbarian civ in N.A. into Andalusian spawn area (Tingis ?), so that having one city in North Africa will make them want expand there.



Why does someone need to expand there? Having it full of pirates and the odd European Outpost/Muslim civ city is fine by me for the time frame of the mod.


2- I really don't understand the purpouse of all those indipendents in central europe outside spawn areas, yet empty spawn areas. Purpouse ? Even less in Ireland, those towns were founded by Norsemen... In Eastern Europe, although the same argument applies, I suggest less indipendents anyways, to create a bit of variety/diversity in gameplay with western civs. IE I suggest eastern civs to start with more settlers than western and be more colonizing-oriented and less aggressive.


1. That map does not have when the independents turn up. The Saxons should spawn after germany (well prague will probably be concurrent) but before poland.
2. Empty spawn areas allow players to choose city sites and get citys with civ-specific bonus. Whilst Independents show the minor states which were conquered after the main civs reached political organisation
3. Since the eastern civs will spawn later thats pretty much a given don't you think?
4. Some towns were founded by Norsemen, but there were Irish kingdoms beforehand and the Norse did a good be of conquering - independent cities to capture represents the situation better.


3- Burgundy shouldn't start there or its spawn area shouldn't be there. The burgundians were based more in the area of that indipendent city south west of their start. Making them start in that position creates a lot of problems, and is not correct, but if you really want it that way then make the spawn area stretch way more south. What's its purpouse btw ? Are we going to have civs resurrect in this modmod ? Otherwise having a spawn area that doesn't include starting towns doesn't serve much.

I think that civs should resurrect - it was an integral part of RFC after all. "Burgandy" moved round one hell of a lot, but I believe it was more the Duchy that was being represented in this mod...plus the original Burgundians started north and headed south, though I agree perhaps it should include Lyons. The purpose of Burgundy is to a) Show the several strong state that had bad luck otl (Germannic Kingdom of Burgundy, Lothar's Frankish state and the Franks in general, The Kingdom and County of Burgundy in the HRE, the powerful Duchy during the Hundred years wars, Charles the Bald's state) b) to complicate things in the early west so that its not merely a German-french dynamic, c) to have another state with strong interests in Northern italy to increases the fun turnover there.

1. The barb city in N. Africa is Tlemcen. Tangier and Fez are already in the spawn area for Al Andalus. So that's 5 cities for them to start with in 700AD. Though Tlemcen could flip or be captured early. More than enough I think. Cyrene/Barca and Tunis could be Byzantine from
the start as they were historically, so they'd be prizes for Al Andalus and the Arabs I think.

Ahh sorry... I don't see Fez or Tangier on that map though (nor Cyrenae). If they will be there, disregard this point.

2. I see your point about the indys in Central Europe though the Balkans had already been settled by Serbs and other Slavs as early as 500AD so having Beograd, Ragusa and Spalato as indys or barbs isn't excessive esp. as Spalato will flip to Venice immediately. And I think we'll only have Dublin in Ireland which we soon fall to Norse raiders anyway I expect.

The humanity started settling way before 500 AD, especially in Europe and in the mediterranean, so it's hard to find a big area that wasn't settled in 500 AD. My question though was is there a purpouse, in the mod, to have so many indipendents between Germany and Poland but none of them in the spawn area ?

3. Burgundy is a real problem though. I agree that they should spawn South and SE but wasn't their capitol Aix-la Chappele (Aachen) at some point, which isn't far from Brussels? I think the indy city is Lyon. I'd rather see them start 3 sqs. south on the lake so Geneva would be their
capitol. They could flip Lyon for their 2nd. city. IMO :)

yes, but "at some point" is not in 500 AD. Plus if we make them start there, they will most probably colonize german spawn lands, which is not what we want I think.

Why does someone need to expand there? Having it full of pirates and the odd European Outpost/Muslim civ city is fine by me for the time frame of the mod.

yeah but the problem is exactly that someone WILL expand there and the question I was asking is who ? If we leave it to the case, it might even be Hungary, the question is: is it what we want ?


For the rest ok, I thought they were all indipendents at start.


I think that civs should resurrect - it was an integral part of RFC after all. "Burgandy" moved round one hell of a lot, but I believe it was more the Duchy that was being represented in this mod...plus the original Burgundians started north and headed south, though I agree perhaps it should include Lyons. The purpose of Burgundy is to a) Show the several strong state that had bad luck otl (Germannic Kingdom of Burgundy, Lothar's Frankish state and the Franks in general, The Kingdom and County of Burgundy in the HRE, the powerful Duchy during the Hundred years wars, Charles the Bald's state) b) to complicate things in the early west so that its not merely a German-french dynamic, c) to have another state with strong interests in Northern italy to increases the fun turnover there.

Yeah, I fully agree (in fact, I propose to include the Burgundian civ ;) ), though I think that all these purpouses would work better if Burgundy starts in its real location. I'm not sure where the Burgundi came from, probably north as you say, though they settled there and called it Burgundia. Now called Bourgogne.

The Burgundy placement issue is a tough one. I'm fine with moving them a couple of tiles S and flipping Lyons, which would give them more options for expansion - but either way, that's going to be a hard UHV, and the AI Burgundy is almost guaranteed to collapse. If there's a way to make a civ's respawn more likely by coding it in, that might be the best way to handle it. One possible benefit to moving them is pushing back the start date to a more historically accurate time - France isn't likely to control any of the Burgundian core region if we have them spawn in 650-700 or so. If we start them with Lyon and Dijon, that's a pretty solid core area which gives them lots of options and makes them more likely to stick.

Onedreamer, it seems to me like the most likely colonizers of N. Africa (besides the Muslim civs) are Venice and Genoa. That's fine by me. We'll start out with 2 cities in modern-day Tunisia and with Cyrene/Barca, but I'd feel more comfortable having those as indies or barb cities than with giving them to the Byzantines, unless we're adding them to hobble research and stability. Even so, we'll have to see whether the benefits of owning, say, Tunis (which is going to be a pretty good city) outweigh the maintenance costs. If they do, we probably don't want it in Byzantine hands.

I nerfed the terrain in N. Africa pretty severely to keep it somewhat barren. There isn't really a civ we could justify putting there - the Maghreb was too large to be controlled by any one group for long periods of time, and the periods of unified political and cultural control are too scattered to include. If al-Andalus, Spain, Venice, Genoa, France, or Arabia want the territory, they're welcome to expand there - but I think it'll be a low priority for most of them in terms of settler maps.

Most of the E. Europe independents are going to show up pretty late. Figuring out the dates on them is one of the jobs that needs doing, if you'd like to take it on.

Most of the E. Europe independents are going to show up pretty late. Figuring out the dates on them is one of the jobs that needs doing, if you'd like to take it on.

That is something to consider. On the Balkan map that I am working right now, I work with the prebuild cities of:
Constantinople (Byzantine)
Adrianopolis (Byzantine)
Thessaloníki (Byzantine)
Athens (Byzantine)
(Bulgarian spawn area north of the Balkan mountain starts empty)
Sofia (?????, historically it was Byzantine and it was conquered by the Bulgarians in 9th century)
Beograde (Independent)
Ragusa (????)
Split/Spalato (????)

Yeah, I fully agree (in fact, I propose to include the Burgundian civ ;) ), though I think that all these purpouses would work better if Burgundy starts in its real location. I'm not sure where the Burgundi came from, probably north as you say, though they settled there and called it Burgundia. Now called Bourgogne.

The pre-migration age Burgundi lived near the Vistula apparently :lol:

Heh, but 'real location' is an entirely debateable point with the Big B. The First Barbarian Kingdom was where you propose, Middle Francia north and south of it, the later Kingdom further to the south, and the Duchy further to the north.

I proposed the spawn zone on the map to a) show the later iterations of Burgundy and b) to stop France and Germany grabbing the north.

Thus, changed map with names, dates, and suggested Barbarian Invasions
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/6493/namesbarbset4.gif
Opps forgot to name and date Milan (570), Zurich (960), and Munich (1100) for those alpine german independents, and Belograd at 630 (slavics arrive)...

And the map based ones of the UHVs I suggested earlier
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/7242/uhvsvz3.gif

I thought that we agreed that Poland will start at Krakow. I would also put Prague 1 tile south, make austrian spawn zone smaller and put Olomouc instead of Brno. I don't know very much about history of other regions, so I'm ok with the rest :)

A couple of questions/points:

-The Norse are starting in the location of Aarhus (NW Denmark), rather than Copenhagen. There'll be room for Copenhagen, too, but they'll have to found it.
-Is the city on the Po Verona? Bologna? Might it be better to leave that land open for Genoa and Venice to fight over? Milan should stay in. Now that Rome is unplayable, it may also be worthwhile to try and squeeze in both Pisa and Florence, rather than just the one.
-Let's take the cities besides Dubh Linn out of Ireland. I realize they're old, and that Ireland wasn't a big Celtic wasteland before the English showed up, but they'd see it that way, so let's give them a moorland full of roving axemen rather than a island of settled cities.
-Some questions on independents in Spain - I'd replace Vitoria with Zaragoza, and consider leaving out La Coruna entirely. Which cities flip to al-Andalus? There's only the one shown in their spawn area in Iberia, and I'm thinking that they should start with 0-1 settlers, but a couple of cities on each landmass. I don't want Iberia to start with 11 cities, but we might consider adding some of the central ones and leaving the Atlantic edge unsettled. This provides a choice between military struggle and settlement for Spain, gives al-Andalus a chance to build infrastructure and wonders in Cordoba and other cities, and gives Portugal a chance to expand peacefully without having to immediately fight for territory.



On the UHV goal map:
-The amount of territory that Russia and Arabia have to control there is huge. While historically accurate, it may not be feasible in gameplay. We may want to cut Russia a break on Wallachia and Poland, and cut off the Maghreb goal at Tunis for Arabia, also eliminating the Balearic islands and Corsica.
-I'd add Rhodes and maybe Cyprus to Venice's UHV territory. Adding Malta for Genoa would be fair, but would stick them with a unproductive city.



A proposed UP for Austria - why not just borrow the Entente from France, to reflect the diplomatic leverage of the Hapsburgs?

Just to add a couple of points to your comments.
The city on the Po is Verona. Bologna is far to the south.
I thought the northern Spanish barb was Pamplona but whichever it should remain to represent
the Basque entity which was a major stumbling block to Christians and Moors alike.

I thought that Al Andalus started by landing with an army on the south coast of Spain with Tangier and Fez as starting cities. If we had them flip Cordoba and Sevilla after a couple of turns with 1 settler so they could found Granada I think that would limit them enough but give them a realistic start.

I think the barb invasions need to be discussed further. If we have too many wouldn't that have
a bad effect on stability? Also the Great Army invasion of England in 870 should be a Norse
event, rather than a barb one as the Danelaw dominated eastern and northern England for nearly
200 years prior to the Norman Conquest IMO.

A couple of questions/points:

-The Norse are starting in the location of Aarhus (NW Denmark), rather than Copenhagen. There'll be room for Copenhagen, too, but they'll have to found it.


My mistake.


-Is the city on the Po Verona? Bologna? Might it be better to leave that land open for Genoa and Venice to fight over? Milan should stay in. Now that Rome is unplayable, it may also be worthwhile to try and squeeze in both Pisa and Florence, rather than just the one.


Verona probably, I thought having a nice independent would stop other state plonking down cities on (what should be) really nice land until the merchent republics show up. Also it means Venice has to focus elsewhere till they can take the city. Re: two cities sounds good, but they should both be quite nice so people try and conquer them ;).


-Let's take the cities besides Dubh Linn out of Ireland. I realize they're old, and that Ireland wasn't a big Celtic wasteland before the English showed up, but they'd see it that way, so let's give them a moorland full of roving axemen rather than a island of settled cities.


*shrug* should be tougher than axemen though ;).


-Some questions on independents in Spain - I'd replace Vitoria with Zaragoza, and consider leaving out La Coruna entirely.


Vitoria represents the Basques and their need to rebel against everyone ;), and Zaragoza is already there as the city on the Ebro to the south. I like La Coruna as a) its celtishness shows the variety of the Iberian penisula and b) there is a chance for Portugal to take it (which nearly happened several times).


Which cities flip to al-Andalus? There's only the one shown in their spawn area in Iberia, and I'm thinking that they should start with 0-1 settlers, but a couple of cities on each landmass.


They get Fez in morocco, but I thought 3 settlers should give the player some leeway with the city layout. If we are having set cities the Seville and Granda probably.

and gives Portugal a chance to expand peacefully without having to immediately fight for territory.


Hmmm...Portugal was born as militant state after all.


On the UHV goal map:
-The amount of territory that Russia and Arabia have to control there is huge. While historically accurate, it may not be feasible in gameplay. We may want to cut Russia a break on Wallachia and Poland, and cut off the Maghreb goal at Tunis for Arabia, also eliminating the Balearic islands and Corsica.


We could it like Rhye does with X cities in each of several zones (Magreb, Islands etc for the Arabs for example) and stipulate that no other civ can have a city there - thus you can have something at quite low density.


-I'd add Rhodes and maybe Cyprus to Venice's UHV territory. Adding Malta for Genoa would be fair, but would stick them with a unproductive city.


Good idea.


A proposed UP for Austria - why not just borrow the Entente from France, to reflect the diplomatic leverage of the Hapsburgs?

Umm, because the most of the their history consists of people organising against them as well due to their luck with inheritence ;)? I still think a 'Power of Inheritance' were a) independents nearby can randomly flip to their control or b) There is a chance of a vassal flipping to become part of Austria is far more apt.

Just to add a couple of points to your comments.
The city on the Po is Verona. Bologna is far to the south.
I thought the northern Spanish barb was Pamplona but whichever it should remain to represent
the Basque entity which was a major stumbling block to Christians and Moors alike.


Indeed, Pamplona would be amoung the Pyrennes and a crummy city due to the mountains.


I thought that Al Andalus started by landing with an army on the south coast of Spain with Tangier and Fez as starting cities. If we had them flip Cordoba and Sevilla after a couple of turns with 1 settler so they could found Granada I think that would limit them enough but give them a realistic start.


The starting spot needs to be where we what the capital - the AI will always found its capital within one turn, so Cordoba needs to be founded by settler. Fez and other cities will flip after that.


I think the barb invasions need to be discussed further. If we have too many wouldn't that have
a bad effect on stability?


Isn't that the point of them ;). Plus playtesting can tune them.


Also events like the Great Army invasion of England in 870 should a
Norse event, rather than a barb one IMO.

Note a) there is no Great army spawn in England - the Norse civ will have to do that itself b) The Great armies were generally independent of the Danish states c) The Norse civ seems more Canute than the Danelaw d) the AI is pretty dumb at the old seaborne invasion thing...

I'm a bit confused now about the Al Andalus start. I think it was decided long ago (st. lucifer will correct me if I'm wrong) that they would start with a least one city in Morocco, land their army and flip a couple of cities in Spain, as happened in history. We seem to have conflicting versions here.

Also, Vitoria just won't do as a city. It was founded in 1551 whereas Pamplona was founded by Pompey in 74BC. It was the capitol of the Basque Kingdom of Pamplona and later the royal capitol of Navarrre. While near the mountains it's not in them. It's on a rich alluvial plain. Believe me, it's flat.
I've been there. Sorry to disagree but Pamplona it must be, in my view.

Finally. Why can't the Norse Great Army appear in Norfolk in 870 as it did in history? It had a major
impact on the history of Britain. We are trying to make this mod fairly accurate historically, aren't we?:)

I'm a bit confused now about the Al Andalus start. I think it was decided long ago (st. lucifer will correct me if I'm wrong) that they would start with a least one city in Morocco, land their army and flip a couple of cities in Spain, as happened in history. We seem to have conflicting versions here.


They spawn in spain and the north african cities flip the turn after. You can't really have it any other way if you want the AI to get the capital in Spain. See Turkey in RFC.


Also, Vitoria just won't do as a city. It was founded in 1551 whereas Pamplona was founded by Pompey in 74BC. It was the capitol of the Basque Kingdom of Pamplona and later the royal capitol of Navarrre. While near the mountains it's not in them. It's on a rich alluvial plain. Believe me, it's flat.
I've been there. Sorry to disagree but Pamplona it must be.


Whut? You're reading the Entry for the Vitoria in Brazil :lol: Iberian Vitoria was founded in 1181, and there was a city on the spot for centuries before. Also the fact that Pamplona is on a rich plain in real life doesn't matter because that's not shown in the resolution of the civ map - where Pamplona is pretty crummy.


Finally. Why can't the Norse Great Army appear in Norfolk in 870 as it did in history? It had a major
impact on the history of Britain. We are trying to make this mod fairly accurate historically, aren't we?:)

Yeah, but that should be the Norse civ doing that (building galleys, berzerkers and what not), I wasn't sure if we were planning on scripting events for the main civs (whould have thought not). Whilst the Normans and low countries great armies were more seperate from the Norse states politically, and thus can be done as barbarians.

They spawn in spain and the north african cities flip the turn after. You can't really have it any other way if you want the AI to get the capital in Spain. See Turkey in RFC.



Whut? You're reading the Entry for the Vitoria in Brazil :lol: Iberian Vitoria was founded in 1181, and there was a city on the spot for centuries before. Also the fact that Pamplona is on a rich plain in real life doesn't matter because that's not shown in the resolution of the civ map - where Pamplona is pretty crummy.



Yeah, but that should be the Norse civ doing that (building galleys, berzerkers and what not), I wasn't sure if we were planning on scripting events for the main civs (whould have thought not). Whilst the Normans and low countries great armies were more seperate from the Norse states politically, and thus can be done as barbarians.

Yes you're right about Vitoria. Sloppy of me. Sorry.:sad:

However, I'm right about Pamplona. It's nowhere near the mountains (OK 10 to 12 miles from them.) But it lies in a circular alluvial plain called the Cuenca de Pamplona and has been famous for it's cereal crops since Roman times. It should be placed away from the mts on the WB map otherwise it would be where Jaca is in real life. It's the ancient capitol of Navarre. Why would you choose a lesser town? Solution = move Pamplona if you like. Easy!

I'm glad to leave the Al Andalus start to st. lucifer to decide but I think it's the way I've described.

As far as the Great Army, I see no reason why a civ can't have a scripted event. It happens in RFC so what's the problem?:)

BTW I just checked st. lucifers' latest WB map. Within it's BFS Pamplona has 9 hill tiles, 7 plains tiles
and 1 sea tile, but NO mountain tiles. That includes pigs, grain, iron and copper along with about 7
forested tiles to chop. Hardly what you would call a "crummy" location, would you?

Verona probably, I thought having a nice independent would stop other state plonking down cities on (what should be) really nice land until the merchent republics show up. Also it means Venice has to focus elsewhere till they can take the city. Re: two cities sounds good, but they should both be quite nice so people try and conquer them ;).


Makes sense, but I can't see an AI having a clear path to the Po valley before the V/G spawns. You do have a point about Venice, though - and given the placement of Milan, Genoa will be handicapped to get there. Venice can simply walk a settler through the swamp. Verona's fine.

It'll require spreading them an extra tile apart, but it shouldn't be any trouble to make both Florence and Pisa strong and desirable cities.


Vitoria represents the Basques and their need to rebel against everyone ;), and Zaragoza is already there as the city on the Ebro to the south. I like La Coruna as a) its celtishness shows the variety of the Iberian penisula and b) there is a chance for Portugal to take it (which nearly happened several times).

They get Fez in morocco, but I thought 3 settlers should give the player some leeway with the city layout. If we are having set cities the Seville and Granda probably.

Hmmm...Portugal was born as militant state after all.

Blah, sorry I missed Zaragoza. I'm still going to vote for Pamplona over Vitoria, though - if necessary, we'll give it a little more agricultural land to counterbalance the intended thickening of the Pyrenees. I'd propose Bilbao as a compromise candidate, but it was founded too late to be a reasonable substitute.

Those are good arguments for La Coruna. I withdraw my objection - there should still be some open land for settling along the northern coast and in the center.

We could it like Rhye does with X cities in each of several zones (Magreb, Islands etc for the Arabs for example) and stipulate that no other civ can have a city there - thus you can have something at quite low density.

That might work for the Maghreb. I still think the Balearics are a little far out for Arabia to be reponsible for - maybe historically accurate, but it would be better to put them into the orbit of al-Andalus, assuming that they have a territory UHV. As far as Russia goes, I'd support having them go as far as Minsk and Konigsberg (Moldova in the SW), but requiring them to eliminate Ukraine, Poland, and come into major territorial conflict with Bulgaria, Sweden, and possibly Germany, Hungary, Genoa, and the Ottomans is a tall order.


Umm, because the most of the their history consists of people organising against them as well due to their luck with inheritence ;)? I still think a 'Power of Inheritance' were a) independents nearby can randomly flip to their control or b) There is a chance of a vassal flipping to become part of Austria is far more apt.

Any vassal, any country, anytime? That's an intriguing power. I don't think there'll be enough independents at that point for the power to make that much of a difference, but it's worth considering.


The starting spot needs to be where we what the capital - the AI will always found its capital within one turn, so Cordoba needs to be founded by settler. Fez and other cities will flip after that.

Good point. Let's give them one settler at Cordoba, and Sevilla/Granada on the flip.

Any vassal, any country, anytime? That's an intriguing power. I don't think there'll be enough independents at that point for the power to make that much of a difference, but it's worth considering.


For the vassal one, something like a 1-1.5% chance each turn that their cities flip to your control provided you have a high stability rating.

Re: an independent based power - well you'll just have to go collapse some civs to release their cities as independents then eh? ;)

The Burgundy placement issue is a tough one. I'm fine with moving them a couple of tiles S and flipping Lyons, which would give them more options for expansion - but either way, that's going to be a hard UHV, and the AI Burgundy is almost guaranteed to collapse.

I think it is even desirable if some civs have harder UHVs than others. So that's fine to me. Burgundy is almost guaranteed to collapse IF you place it where it is currently placed it. That'sthe main problem I was hinting to when I said to move it to its real location.

One possible benefit to moving them is pushing back the start date to a more historically accurate time - France isn't likely to control any of the Burgundian core region if we have them spawn in 650-700 or so.

I disagree because Burgundi were there before the Franks invaded France.

If we start them with Lyon and Dijon, that's a pretty solid core area which gives them lots of options and makes them more likely to stick.

Exactly.

Most of the E. Europe independents are going to show up pretty late. Figuring out the dates on them is one of the jobs that needs doing, if you'd like to take it on.

I can give my suggestions. Where's the list though ? And btw, I can't find the wiki page for this project >_<


Heh, but 'real location' is an entirely debateable point with the Big B. The First Barbarian Kingdom was where you propose, Middle Francia north and south of it, the later Kingdom further to the south, and the Duchy further to the north.

I proposed the spawn zone on the map to a) show the later iterations of Burgundy and b) to stop France and Germany grabbing the north.

Why is it debatable ? All civs start where they were in the date when they spawn, the same should apply to Burgundy. Let me anticipate something: Burgundy has a very peculiar history which will be hard to recreate, if not impossible in its real life mechanics since the dominant element in that history are marriages and changes of land. The human player might be able to do it (hard UHV as St. Lucifer mentioned), the AI most probably won't, but I think we should at least make so that it won't end up easily squeezed by Germany and France when the first spawns, or vice versa that it doesn't hinder Germany too much. The most suitable location to prevent this is incidentally also Burgundy's location in 500 AD, so I think there isn't much debate here. But we might discuss on how to make it easier for Burgundy to colonize Flanders than for France and Germany.


-Is the city on the Po Verona? Bologna? Might it be better to leave that land open for Genoa and Venice to fight over? Milan should stay in. Now that Rome is unplayable, it may also be worthwhile to try and squeeze in both Pisa and Florence, rather than just the one.

Internationally and politically speaking Pisa was very important from the Roman Age until 1300, more than Florence, whos importance started to grow much thereafter (especially since its conquest of Pisa in 1400). Until then Pisa was the most important city in Tuscany. It had expanded a lot in the Mediterranean: Sardinia, Sicily, and they had huge trade concessions (ie little to no tax duties) in the Byzantine Empire (with a whole area in Constantinopolis reserved to Pisan residents/merchants), holy land and Crimea. They became the "favored nation" by Byzantium but this plus their growing aims on Tuscany's lands made it become enemy of pretty much all the republics there, which were closer to the Pope (which in that age wasn't in good relationships with Constantinopolis). Pisa was the main antagonist of Genua in their early stages, they fought many wars until a devasting loss by Pisa at the end of 1200's, which followed by the Aragon's conquest of Sardinia in early 1300 signed the end of the glorious days for Pisa. I was surprised to not see Pisa as a strong indipendent acting as an obstacle for Genua, so I am glad you are considering it. Actually, I'd say that at Genua's start, if we have to choose between the existance of Pisa and Florence, I'd choose the first. Map of Pisan expansions:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/c/c3/Espansione_di_Pisa.png
From the menu:
-Conquered territories
-Strong commercial presence
-Important trade centers
-Concessions of the Kingdom of Sicily under the Hohenstaufen House
-Trade routes

Remember that although city states with apparently little to no power, the Maritime Republics were strong commercial powers literally dominating the Mediterranean, which was the most important sea in Europe until 1492; and that even the biggest Empires had to come down to deals with them to do just about anything in the Mediterranean. How are you going to represent this ingame (probably with UPs) I don't know, but it's not going to be easy :p

Let's take the cities besides Dubh Linn out of Ireland. I realize they're old, and that Ireland wasn't a big Celtic wasteland before the English showed up, but they'd see it that way, so let's give them a moorland full of roving axemen rather than a island of settled cities.

Exactly, like I already said by 500 AD civilization was pretty much anywhere in Europe. You can mention cities or settlements everywhere. But this should definitely NOT be the argument for their inclusion as indys IMO. The question should be: how important was Dublin for Europe until English conquest ? Heh...

I think the barb invasions need to be discussed further. If we have too many wouldn't that have a bad effect on stability?

Only if the defenders fail in defending ;)


They get Fez in morocco, but I thought 3 settlers should give the player some leeway with the city layout. If we are having set cities the Seville and Granda probably.

I still don't see Tangier on the new map. I really want to make a case for it because since Andalusian mainland will be in Iberia it's better if their north african starting city is Tangier.

The starting spot needs to be where we what the capital - the AI will always found its capital within one turn, so Cordoba needs to be founded by settler. Fez and other cities will flip after that.

the capital doesn't need to be founded by settler. For example, take RFC: France in the 3000 AD start. The capital will be Paris even when Lutetia is already there.

[QUOTE=onedreamer;6841992
the capital doesn't need to be founded by settler. For example, take RFC: France in the 3000 AD start. The capital will be Paris even when Lutetia is already there.[/QUOTE]

I thought that was because Lutetia got removed by France spawning?

Quick point: thinking about it we should move the Dutch start back, to give them more playable turns (160 isn't much). If we move them to an earlier time where (much like the Americans in RFC) they are indubitably dutch, but before their actual rebellion and statehood . I would suggest 1494 (giving 202 turns of game play) when the Treaty of Senlis saw France giving up claims to the now Habsburg Netherlands.

That or extending the scope to 1850AD with 50 extra turns ;).

I thought that was because Lutetia got removed by France spawning?

Quick point: thinking about it we should move the Dutch start back, to give them more playable turns (160 isn't much). If we move them to an earlier time where (much like the Americans in RFC) they are indubitably dutch, but before their actual rebellion and statehood . I would suggest 1494 (giving 202 turns of game play) when the Treaty of Senlis saw France giving up claims to the now Habsburg Netherlands.

That or extending the scope to 1850AD with 50 extra turns ;).

I've had similiar reservations about the Swedes as well as the Dutch. Neither would seem to offer much interesting gameplay for long enough in the mod. Though I would be wary of extending the scope to 1850AD considering the signifaicant changes in technology and warfare that might entail.:)

I thought that was because Lutetia got removed by France spawning?

Quick point: thinking about it we should move the Dutch start back, to give them more playable turns (160 isn't much). If we move them to an earlier time where (much like the Americans in RFC) they are indubitably dutch, but before their actual rebellion and statehood . I would suggest 1494 (giving 202 turns of game play) when the Treaty of Senlis saw France giving up claims to the now Habsburg Netherlands.

That or extending the scope to 1850AD with 50 extra turns ;).

I'm also wary of extending play to 1850, but I'd be fine with moving the Dutch back. I believe that our initial discussions had them starting much earlier, but we moved the date to the first clear independent Netherlands.

We could also easily move Sweden back to 1397 (Kalmar union) if 1500 is too late - it would give them more of a hand in Germany and the Baltic in the era that they were historically most active. Does anyone oppose either of these changes?

I'm also wary of extending play to 1850, but I'd be fine with moving the Dutch back. I believe that our initial discussions had them starting much earlier, but we moved the date to the first clear independent Netherlands.

We could also easily move Sweden back to 1397 (Kalmar union) if 1500 is too late - it would give them more of a hand in Germany and the Baltic in the era that they were historically most active. Does anyone oppose either of these changes?

Well two hundred turns is a good deal (and would give player emphasis to a deluge of military agressiveness), and I'd opposed the Kalmar union starting date since that is the antithesis of an independent sweden ;), perhaps 1436 with the first rebellion from the union?

Hi, I don't know if the info i saw was current, but it was on Wikirhye's, and I hope this hasn't been addressed already, but the Frankish leader needs to be Charlemagne, the greatest king in all medieval europe. As sated by the narrator of "The Dark Ages" on the History Channel: Charlemagne was a rennaisance man born a few hundred years too early.

Well two hundred turns is a good deal (and would give player emphasis to a deluge of military agressiveness), and I'd opposed the Kalmar union starting date since that is the antithesis of an independent sweden ;), perhaps 1436 with the first rebellion from the union?

1436 sounds good. Sorry for missing this - I took a couple of days off and it got buried. :P



Astrognash, the French will probably start out as Charlemagne, transitioning to a Renaissance leader (probably Louis XIV) in the middle. As with RFC, we're doing dynamic leaders.

this thread might be of interest to people developing RFE http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=182881

is there a list of Wonders somewhere? Or does one still need to be formed?

is there a list of Wonders somewhere? Or does one still need to be formed?

Wonders were briefly discussed in that many earler ones in RFC might remain while later ones discarded. Also the poss. of civ. specific national wonders was considered too. If you'd like to suggest a list of Europe-orientated wonders both world and national, please do so.

But as it seems this project is on hold for now, I'll wait for st. lucifer to post again rather than initiate any further discussions. A lot of work has been left unfinished. People seem more interested in RFC RAND and other things than in moving this project forward. Sad, really.:sad:

Are you going to represent the Albigensian cities as an independent kingdom, or as a bunch of them? Because France had to conquer them to become what it is today.

Are you going to represent the Albigensian cities as an independent kingdom, or as a bunch of them? Because France had to conquer them to become what it is today.

See the RFC Europe final civ list on RFC Wiki. But I believe there would be indy cities in France and Iberia which would be there in the 500AD start.:)

coders are so hard to come by....i can have all the histroical knowledge in the world...also....do we need more Euro-centric, Middle Age bulidings? i can knock up a list for that too....

coders are so hard to come by....i can have all the histroical knowledge in the world...also....do we need more Euro-centric, Middle Age bulidings? i can knock up a list for that too....

Yes Euro-specific UB's would be good. What do you suggest? BTW I've PM'd you on the Wiki twice.:)

answered (10 chars)

its been like a year since thread was made..can we expect this thing anytime soon?

Dont wanna sound pushy, just wondering

its been like a year since thread was made..can we expect this thing anytime soon?

Dont wanna sound pushy, just wondering

I agree. A year is a long time. Bet Rhye did RFC on his own in less time. But I'm only one contributor. I can't speak for anyone else. I wish everyone would get cracking again and do it. But it seems that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. And that is a hell of a shame IMO.:sad:

So when is this coming out??

So when is this coming out??

As I've just said, with nobody doing the work on it lately, probably never.:(

As I've just said, with nobody doing the work on it lately, probably never.:(

Why did they have to get our hopes up!

Why did they have to get our hopes up!

As one of "they", I'm sorry about that. Maybe it's not dead yet. I just don't know.:confused:

while there i would like to see some scenarios under RFC - no offence, europe isn't one of them unless the dynamic story is really good from all ends. I liked the idea for example about russia starting as a peaceful expansion leader then transitioning to a militant machine, as well as the way you wanted to handle the Mongol invasions.

i suppose i don't have much interest in europe but i would love a game in america focused on the native nations vs the colonists - the colonies would start as english and over time transition to america, which would break down and the south would become either a confederate nation - or independant nation, before re-uniting and looking for west expansion.

Hey if it ever comes out, despite my lack of interest in european history i will try it. it is sad to see such well thought out projects like this and TR die.

The way I see it RFC Europe lacks coders. I was rather busy with a conference for the past month, and now I could take a look at the python. I could learn how to code python easily, however, I cannot do c++. The problem is that I have no way of compiling any c++ program (for Windows, I am actually using Linux).

The way I see it RFC Europe lacks coders. I was rather busy with a conference for the past month, and now I could take a look at the python. I could learn how to code python easily, however, I cannot do c++. The problem is that I have no way of compiling any c++ program (for Windows, I am actually using Linux).

Nice to see you back. I agree we need coders desperately. Are you able to code the existing settler maps that are still waiting? I've also spoken to st. lucifer about this recently and he suggested Whitefire (one of the originals) as the new coordinator. And most importantly he is a coder. But to any other coders out there, we need you as well:)

I thought the settler maps were automatically converted from Excel to code, didn't someone have a script or program that would do that?

Compiling C++ remains an issue. But I'll be brutally honest: I feel at some point the proposed complexity of this mod really spiralled out of control and its gone from being an RFC scenario to something I would be out of my depth implementing in vanilla never mind working on top of Rhye's code.

Complexity could be brought down (and it probably will, if the mod even come out). I could do considerable part of the work, I can program both python and C++, however, I don't even know where to start. Questions for anyone that might know the answer:

1. Is there anywhere a manual or documentation on how to create a mod? XML is easy to read (it is just data), however, I am not sure where and when the different Python and C++ functions get called.
2. What did Rhye and maybe Firaxis used to compile the code?

With the hint of Metal Alloy Man sort of following what people are doing in the Byzantine tread, I managed to compile some code. It did not run (as soon as I started the game it said that I had died and kicked me out). I could only do Debug, Final Release gave smoe XML error (in compiling).

Since the Makefile is for BtS 3.17 I had to modify it and probably modified it incorrectly. Anyway, I am one step closet to giving up :)

Will try again tomorrow.

With the hint of Metal Alloy Man sort of following what people are doing in the Byzantine tread, I managed to compile some code. It did not run (as soon as I started the game it said that I had died and kicked me out). I could only do Debug, Final Release gave smoe XML error (in compiling).

Since the Makefile is for BtS 3.17 I had to modify it and probably modified it incorrectly. Anyway, I am one step closet to giving up :)

Will try again tomorrow.

At least you're trying. That's more than I can say for so many others who were so keen on this project, including coders, who all seem to have faded away from sight. Unfortunately there's only a couple of us left who seem to care at all anymore. Sad, really.:sad:

I managed to compile Rhye's code. Now I can build and modify it to fit whatever mod (at least on theory I can, it still remains open to understand how the code works and how to implement the changes). Thus I will give up whenever I realize how complicated the code is and how it is beyond my abilities to undrestand it :)

jessiecat, if it will be just the two of us doing this, I will need a lot of help at some point of time. I believe initially we started the whole map wrong. Perhaps we should have made a complete city map of Europe using modern names and them modify those for the corresponding civ and age. That way we make sure all the maps align (settler and conquest). However, until I understand how the maps work in the code, it is pointless to do anything.

I managed to compile Rhye's code. Now I can build and modify it to fit whatever mod (at least on theory I can, it still remains open to understand how the code works and how to implement the changes). Thus I will give up whenever I realize how complicated the code is and how it is beyond my abilities to undrestand it :)

jessiecat, if it will be just the two of us doing this, I will need a lot of help at some point of time. I believe initially we started the whole map wrong. Perhaps we should have made a complete city map of Europe using modern names and them modify those for the corresponding civ and age. That way we make sure all the maps align (settler and conquest). However, until I understand how the maps work in the code, it is pointless to do anything.

I'm glad you're having some success. Wish I could do more to help. There are others like Whitefire and Disenfranchised (two of the originals) who could, if they're still interested. St. lucifer too might stay on board if someone like you could crack the coding. Maybe Rhye himself might lend you a hand when he gets back from Japan (If we ask him nicely). Till then, I'm still on board and will help in any way I can, esp. with the civs, techs, units and such. Hang in there. All is not lost yet IMO.:)

I am currently trying to make the transition between Rhye's map and ours. Almost everything in RFC is hard-coded (most in python I hope) and there is very little flexibility (which is to be expected from such a scenario). I removed all nations and added the Byzantines (the first one in the RFCEurope mod), however, the code is still looking for everyone else. I am trying to strip the code off everything except Egypt, which would become the Byzantines. I hope to have some progress (i.e. playable lonely Byzantines by tomorrow, but no promises).

Once I establish how the backbone of everything works it should get easy enough (I hope). We will not be changing anything fundamental except Congress (it would drop IMO) and Tech three, but I am using the original TT one at the moment.

I am currently trying to make the transition between Rhye's map and ours. Almost everything in RFC is hard-coded (most in python I hope) and there is very little flexibility (which is to be expected from such a scenario). I removed all nations and added the Byzantines (the first one in the RFCEurope mod), however, the code is still looking for everyone else. I am trying to strip the code off everything except Egypt, which would become the Byzantines. I hope to have some progress (i.e. playable lonely Byzantines by tomorrow, but no promises).

Once I establish how the backbone of everything works it should get easy enough (I hope). We will not be changing anything fundamental except Congress (it would drop IMO) and Tech three, but I am using the original TT one at the moment.

Sounds like a good start. How about the map? Are we still using the latest excel map as a template? Or the latest WB map? I could do a generic city map as you've suggested using the settler maps already done as a guideline. That way we'd have a starter map with civ-specific name changes to be added later. I agree about congresses and using the existing tech tree with obviously redundant ones deleted from the start and the end. I'll look at the tech tree too if you like and suggest a few extras where appropriate.:)

Hey, 3Miro did you sucessfully make a Rhye's makefile? If so it would be very useful to me, ijnavy and anyone else hoping to make the Byzantines playable.

Thanks.

Edit:Found it in the Byzantines thread.

I managed to compile Rhye's code. Now I can build and modify it to fit whatever mod (at least on theory I can, it still remains open to understand how the code works and how to implement the changes). Thus I will give up whenever I realize how complicated the code is and how it is beyond my abilities to undrestand it :)

jessiecat, if it will be just the two of us doing this, I will need a lot of help at some point of time. I believe initially we started the whole map wrong. Perhaps we should have made a complete city map of Europe using modern names and them modify those for the corresponding civ and age. That way we make sure all the maps align (settler and conquest). However, until I understand how the maps work in the code, it is pointless to do anything.

Once you've figured out how the maps work in the code, let me know and I'll do whatever kind of map you need. That much, at least, I'm comfortable with.


I'm sorry for my absenteeism in recent weeks. I'm pretty burnt out on this - I haven't even touched RFC random yet - and, as Umarth said, the complexity level may be too high here, which is probably my fault as I can't code any of the changes I've proposed making.


If I can help with the map, though, I'd love to do it.

Lets hold on the maps for a couple of days. I can see how to manipulate the WB save files (those are just text), but I an not sure about the Excel ones. I wish to first butcher all the Python and C++ and remove all the old civs leaving only Byzantines Barbs and Independents. Hopefully the game would start then with only those civs and whatever city names.

Edit: The settler maps are easy enough, but the conquest map is odd. I can see why Rhye did it this way, but it is way too much coding. I might change it.

Edit2: Do you think we should add contact decay as in RFC. In world history contact between Europe and China was gained and lost several times, but in Europe alone, did civs in the Middle ages ever lost contact with one another?

Lets hold on the maps for a couple of days. I can see how to manipulate the WB save files (those are just text), but I an not sure about the Excel ones. I wish to first butcher all the Python and C++ and remove all the old civs leaving only Byzantines Barbs and Independents. Hopefully the game would start then with only those civs and whatever city names.

Edit: The settler maps are easy enough, but the conquest map is odd. I can see why Rhye did it this way, but it is way too much coding. I might change it.

Edit2: Do you think we should add contact decay as in RFC. In world history contact between Europe and China was gained and lost several times, but in Europe alone, did civs in the Middle ages ever lost contact with one another?

OK. I'll wait for your work before looking at maps. I assume you're using the latest WB save. My take on multiple city names is that they are mostly cumbersome and add nothing of value to gameplay. The prospect of having 20 different ethnic names for each city is ludicrous and historically prissy IMO. This is a game, not a PHD thesis on historical geography. I'd prefer we start with generic or commonly understood names but add an easy name-changing facility for the player as it was done in Civ3.
I don't think contact decay is very useful at all. My reading of early European history points to little or vague contact at first becoming more regular with exchange of embassies and thru war. So building embassies as well as sending out scouts or merchants should facilitate increasing contact with each other with the maritime nations probably having an early advantage diplomatically.:)

So contact is not fundamentally different than contact in regular Civ. We can add techs that would allow more options in diplomacy (to signify increased contact) and perhaps some actions such as alliances become available with an Embassy, but this is for later. I am removing the contact decay for now.

Guys, now that we have a RFC makefile I was wondering if I could possibly help in this project. I know a little bit about C++ but still haven't been able to compile it and I think this would be a great learning expierince. Unfortunatly I won't be able to actually work on anything until sunday and I have 3 other projects that I need to finish(decifer me or devour you BTS, Assimilation and Playable Byzantines[If I can finally sucessfully compile code I will be able to finish it]) as well. I wish you the best of luck and just want to let you know that I'm here to help if you need it.

P.S.-If I want to access files will I need to be a member of the wiki?

P.P.S.-What do you guys use to code things (I'm assuming Visual C++ 2008 which hasn't worked at all yet for me.)

Guys, now that we have a RFC makefile I was wondering if I could possibly help in this project. I know a little bit about C++ but still haven't been able to compile it and I think this would be a great learning expierince. Unfortunatly I won't be able to actually work on anything until sunday and I have 3 other projects that I need to finish(decifer me or devour you BTS, Assimilation and Playable Byzantines[If I can finally sucessfully compile code I will be able to finish it]) as well. I wish you the best of luck and just want to let you know that I'm here to help if you need it.

P.S.-If I want to access files will I need to be a member of the wiki?

P.P.S.-What do you guys use to code things (I'm assuming Visual C++ 2008 which hasn't worked at all yet for me.)

Your help would be appreciated of course. As far as the wiki goes, I'm one of the moderators. You can access files (read only) but if you want to add to any of them you should join the wiki. If you want to add suggestions to the civ descriptions that'd be great as long as you don't delete what's already there. Everything is still up for discussion. Welcome aboard.:)

I installed Visual Studio 2005 ( the free version ) and it worked for me. Most people update their VS, because they use it for different purposes and need the latest version. However, I do most of my codin in Unix environment, so I only use VS for Civ purposes.

I am currently working on the Python, removing all the current civ from it and at this point replacing it with a single Byzantine civ. Then we will add other RFCEurope civs (that is if it works).

How about we start a new sub-forum of Rhye's of Europe?

I'll start working some of the python, but we still need to decide UHV and other things.

Barbarians= Persians, Lombards, Avars, Viking raiders, Pecheneges, Mongols, Timurids, Pirates, African natives, Scotts, Welsh, Irish natives, and Hussities. This is what I've come up with. If anyone has anything else to add, please tell me. I'm going to write the city spawnings and barbarian spawnings now.

Your right, we should start an RFC Europed Sub-Forum.

How about we start a new sub-forum of Rhye's of Europe?

I'll start working some of the python, but we still need to decide UHV and other things.

I asked about this a few months ago, and was told that if we got a beta up and running, we'd get our subforum. So, there's an incentive for us. :D

Barbarians= Persians, Lombards, Avars, Viking raiders, Pecheneges, Mongols, Timurids, Pirates, African natives, Scotts, Welsh, Irish natives, and Hussities. This is what I've come up with. If anyone has anything else to add, please tell me. I'm going to write the city spawnings and barbarian spawnings now.

Check out the proposed map on the wiki with barb/indy cities which cover most of these. The indy cities in France and Iberia would represent the existing Visigoth kingdom circa 500-711AD. And don't
forget the Breton and Cornish barbs either.;)

EDIT: See 3Miro's reply. So don't write anything just yet.

Careful with what you do, it would make no sense to duplicate what we are doing.

We do need spawn dates for indep cities and all of that, so I don't mean to stop anyone. I am just currently working on starting something up. Python no longer gives me error on load (meaning I removed enough of the unnecessary civs, but c++ now crashes).

The amount of work that needs to be done is immense, so we need to do it one step at a time.

Careful with what you do, it would make no sense to duplicate what we are doing.

We do need spawn dates for indep cities and all of that, so I don't mean to stop anyone. I am just currently working on starting something up. Python no longer gives me error on load (meaning I removed enough of the unnecessary civs, but c++ now crashes).

The amount of work that needs to be done is immense, so we need to do it one step at a time.

Totally agree. Which version of the map are you using? I think st. lucifer has the latest WB version.:)

Actually it makes little difference. The UB version is the easiest thing to change (at this point). It would be problematic if we go into coding the city names and spawn locations and after having coded all of them to change the map (would be very bad). Now I am trying to get only Byzantines and the two indeps (without any indep cities).

Actually it makes little difference. The UB version is the easiest thing to change (at this point). It would be problematic if we go into coding the city names and spawn locations and after having coded all of them to change the map (would be very bad). Now I am trying to get only Byzantines and the two indeps (without any indep cities).

I take it you mean WB (Worldbuilder) not UB. RFC Europe version v303 posted by st. lucifer a while back is the most recent I think.

There might be some slight differences in the maps, but it is not important at this point. If we get the .dll file to work with either map, we will be in good shape to start working.

Anyone familiar with the Visual C++ debuger? When I try to start the game I get an unhandled exception (access violation) The debuger is supposed to catch that and give me the point in the code where the problem is, however it says no code available. When I start the game it says that some debug .dll library could not be loaded (msvcr71d.dll or something like that) does this make significant difference? The game loads until the leader selection and crashesh when I try to start the game as the Byzantines.

The assembly code (disassembly as useless as it is) gives the registers and something like Plot::Terrain something (I can get the exact thing tomorrow). The problem I believe is in the fact that Rhye has hard coded the dimensions of his map on many places in the code, it looks like the program is trying to read a plot that is not there and crashes. It is very hard to catch all of those little things, Rhye has made code modifications all over the place and hunting down all the placed where the dimensions are hard coded would be hard even for him.

(Note: it is beyond me to question the genius of Rhye and yet many of the code changes could have been done in a better way, especially all the switch statements on the civ specific modifiers and the UP, better meaning more flexible, functionality would have been the same)

Just a heads up but remember about optimization when coding UHV's (there was just a thread about this a couple days ago). It can greatly affect gameplay.

While I was writing the independent cities, I came up with some suggestions.
Suggestions:
Add Bohemia and Serbia.
Make Byzantine's spawn area their whole empire in 500.
Increase France's spawn area.
Change Hungary's spawn to 970, Germany's to 840 and Moscow to at least 1200.

Also, so far I have 60 independent cities (there are about 40 in RFC), is this too much? I'm looking at the map in the wiki, and I'm trying to make less than there are there. There will probably be 70 when I'm done.

While I was writing the independent cities, I came up with some suggestions.
Suggestions:
Add Bohemia and Serbia.
Make Byzantine's spawn area their whole empire in 500.
Increase France's spawn area.
Change Hungary's spawn to 970, Germany's to 840 and Moscow to at least 1200.

Also, so far I have 60 independent cities (there are about 40 in RFC), is this too much? I'm looking at the map in the wiki, and I'm trying to make less than there are there. There will probably be 70 when I'm done.

I'm not trying to discourage anybody but didn't 3Miro ask us to wait before writing anything up until he's got the code sorted?

And as far as your suggestions go, I thought the civs, their spawn dates and spawn areas had already been agreed after months of discussion, though I do agree that the full extent of the Byzantine Empire in 500AD should be represented. That's not to say everything's final, just that we need the coding sorted out first. I think about 20 civs is enough though I guess everybody's got ideas about others which could be added. We do have to have some limit, don't we?

And regarding your independent cities, if you have you looked at the ones on Disenfranchised's map on the wiki, don't you think the number of them is about right? Maybe a couple in central Europe could be dropped but why not stick with what we've got so far? Others could be added later when we get the playable beta version up and running.

Instead I'd suggest you read the civ list on the wiki and start suggesting UU's, UB's, UP's and UHV's esp. for civs where nothing has been done yet. (see my proposals for the Bulgarians, Arabs and Cordobans as examples) Why not help me fill out the civ lists on the wiki? That'd be a big help.:)

I can definetly help with the UU's,UB's,UP's and UHV's and it's probably best if I try and help with this because I'm not the best coder. I have to be a member of the wiki to edit it though don't I(to edit things), oh well no big deal.

Here is my work so far on UHV:

I still think that we should discuss my suggestions even though you already decided months ago.

Here is my work so far on UHV:

I still think that we should discuss my suggestions even though you already decided months ago.

Those suggestions are great. How do they compare with the ones in the wiki?
And why up to 7 UHV's? Surely we'd only have 3 per civ.Anyway, why don't your add your
ideas to the wiki civ lists where everybody can read them.
As far as your other suggestions go, of course they can be discussed, but let's leave the civs
and the spawn dates as they are for now, until we get a beta version up, as I said before.:)

I can definetly help with the UU's,UB's,UP's and UHV's and it's probably best if I try and help with this because I'm not the best coder. I have to be a member of the wiki to edit it though don't I(to edit things), oh well no big deal.

Ya, like I said to ijnavy, just join the wiki and just add what you like to whatever is already there in the wiki civ lists. Your help is welcome too, of course.:)

Thanks. I had many UHV for each civ so that we could choose. I'll add them to the wiki. Here are the independent cities that I have. I used the map in the wiki and added, subtracted some. There might be too many.

Just ignore the 1's.

Thanks. I had many UHV for each civ so that we could choose. I'll add them to the wiki. Here are the independent cities that I have. I used the map in the wiki and added, subtracted some. There might be too many.

Just ignore the 1's.

Did you mean adding Bohemia and Serbia as playable civs, or adding independents to their respective areas to represent them?

I ment added them as playable civilizations.

I gotta agree with ijnavy about Bohemia but I don't know enough about Serbian history to be the judge of that.

Sorry, these UHV are a little worse than my other ones.

im sorry, i just cant bear 32 pages.

Lets keep this civil, but in a nutshell, here are my questions:

1: Where can i find the most recent version?

2: Is this version pretty fun? What is fun about it?

3: Is the game stable, working, in good shape? What are the known bugs and problems?

4: Is this project going to live on, and continue progressing?

I posted here a while back with a lack of interest, but my interest is really growing. Answers are appreciated as well as anything else relevant you can tell me before i download it.

Currently we have just begun to code Rhye's of Europe so there's no playable version at the moment and when we get a beta up and running it'll have it's own sub-forum. All these threads about it are just development threads, right now Rhye's of Europe isn't even out, however if you can code we'd love your assistance.

Here's a list of what I've come up with so far. Feel free to criticize it. No, I have not added any of it to the wiki but feel free to.

Byzantium

UP: Power of the Emperor(see wiki)

UB:Hippodrome

UU:Cataphract

Franks

UP: Power of Entente(same as RFC)

UB:Salon

UU:Francisca(replaces axeman, extra first strikes) or Musketeer

Burgundy:

UP:?

UU:? Salon?

UU:Musketeer? Francisca?

Bulgaria looks good
Arabia looks good
Al-Andalus looks good but whats with the great general
Spain looks good except why don't we just use the conquistador and have it replace the knight. Once we have the Beta up and running we can deal with the historical accuracy. Plus, we need graphics to import or we need an animator, which I doubt we'll get.

Norse:

UP:Same as RFC

UB:Trading Post

UU:Berzerker

Venice:

UP:+1 trade route in all coastal cities?

UU:?

UB:?



P.S. Can several civs have the same UU(like in civ3 middle ages scenario)?

Following a week long struggle with the code on all levels (the game was crashing because of an error in the WB file, which was my fault) I came up with this (download from the link, the file was too big to attach normally). One can now start the damn thing, select the Byzantines and play. There are no other civs present and one cannot build a settler (I don't know why, I am trying to find out). Other than that everything seems to work so far.

Test it if you get the chance, win with a regular victory (if you can, it is hard since one can only build one city). The mercenary screen seems to work, but I never saw any mercenaries appear (I might have removed that from the code, Rhye had something to make sure there are no overpowered units and to distinguish between "Old" and "New" world). You can go to the WB and give yourself some settlers, I want to see if the stability would work properly. Drop your stability and see if there would be a civil war and if cities would declare independence. Report anything that does not work (and it might be supposed to work).

What I will try next (meaning next week) is:
1. Fix the settler issue
2. Add independent cities (a few probably on the Balkans to make sure independents do not crash the game)
3. Add Bulgaria to see if I can get a later civ to spawn.

I will hold on UP and UHV for now, since they would require code overhaul. The way Rhye's code is, it works but it gives very little flexibility on adding new civs. If I (we) follow the same conversion, adding each civ would be pain the the general lower back area, it is better to spend some more time coding now and save a lot of time later.

Of course we should first agree on UHVs and UPs.

Assignment to whomever is interested:
There are two types of maps in RFC, one is the city name map which is located in the file CityNameManager.py It is an array with dimensions equal to the map size (little bit bigger right now since I changes it) and values equal to the city names ("-1" if there is no name corresponding to this city). This is straight forward, when founding a city, take a name from the map, if it is "-1" use a name corresponding to that civ from BtS.

There is a second type of map called SettlerMap. This map is used for two reasons, first the AI decided where to found cities based upon this map (hence settler map) and second it is used in computing stability (max area of expansion perhaps). Those maps are in CvRhyes.cpp (in CvGameCoreDLL folder). The size again corresponds to the size of the map, however, the values are something like 10, 100, 400, 500. I don't know what those mean, if anyone can figure it out, it would be great.

It is not hard to get city name maps from the WB and I suppose I can do it from excel as well, however, I don't know what the values in the settler map mean and hence I cannot make one.

RFC Europe: Test version, Aug 15, 2008
http://rapidshare.com/files/137613788/RFCEurope_tst_Aug1508.zip.html

Sorry, these UHV are a little worse than my other ones.

Maybe you've misunderstood me. After I made the page outlines for the civ list I started filling them in with my suggestions, esp. with Bulgaria,the Arabs, the Ottomans and the Cordobans. Everything you see there are MY suggestions only. There's nothing to stop you or anyone else from doing the same for all the other civs as well. They are opinions only. Nothing has been decided yet and won't be until somebody posts their ideas so everybody can look at them. Add anything you like to the wiki as suggestions. That's what it's there for. OK?:)
BTW I think you did promise settler maps for Russia and the Kievan Rus. What ever happened to them?

Here's a list of what I've come up with so far. Feel free to criticize it. No, I have not added any of it to the wiki but feel free to.

Byzantium

UP: Power of the Emperor(see wiki)

UB:Hippodrome

UU:Cataphract

Franks

UP: Power of Entente(same as RFC)

UB:Salon

UU:Francisca(replaces axeman, extra first strikes) or Musketeer

Burgundy:

UP:?

UU:? Salon?

UU:Musketeer? Francisca?

Bulgaria looks good
Arabia looks good
Al-Andalus looks good but whats with the great general
Spain looks good except why don't we just use the conquistador and have it replace the knight. Once we have the Beta up and running we can deal with the historical accuracy. Plus, we need graphics to import or we need an animator, which I doubt we'll get.

Norse:

UP:Same as RFC

UB:Trading Post

UU:Berzerker

Venice:

UP:+1 trade route in all coastal cities?

UU:?

UB:?



P.S. Can several civs have the same UU(like in civ3 middle ages scenario)?

As I've just said, all suggestions are welcome. Feel free to add them to the
wiki as well. That's why I've left the sub-headings blank.
As for the great general entries they were just names I found while doing
some military research. Not relevant at the moment but interesting to me.:)

Following a week long struggle with the code on all levels (the game was crashing because of an error in the WB file, which was my fault) I came up with this (download from the link, the file was too big to attach normally). One can now start the damn thing, select the Byzantines and play. There are no other civs present and one cannot build a settler (I don't know why, I am trying to find out). Other than that everything seems to work so far.

Test it if you get the chance, win with a regular victory (if you can, it is hard since one can only build one city). The mercenary screen seems to work, but I never saw any mercenaries appear (I might have removed that from the code, Rhye had something to make sure there are no overpowered units and to distinguish between "Old" and "New" world). You can go to the WB and give yourself some settlers, I want to see if the stability would work properly. Drop your stability and see if there would be a civil war and if cities would declare independence. Report anything that does not work (and it might be supposed to work).

What I will try next (meaning next week) is:
1. Fix the settler issue
2. Add independent cities (a few probably on the Balkans to make sure independents do not crash the game)
3. Add Bulgaria to see if I can get a later civ to spawn.

I will hold on UP and UHV for now, since they would require code overhaul. The way Rhye's code is, it works but it gives very little flexibility on adding new civs. If I (we) follow the same conversion, adding each civ would be pain the the general lower back area, it is better to spend some more time coding now and save a lot of time later.

Of course we should first agree on UHVs and UPs.

Assignment to whomever is interested:
There are two types of maps in RFC, one is the city name map which is located in the file CityNameManager.py It is an array with dimensions equal to the map size (little bit bigger right now since I changes it) and values equal to the city names ("-1" if there is no name corresponding to this city). This is straight forward, when founding a city, take a name from the map, if it is "-1" use a name corresponding to that civ from BtS.

There is a second type of map called SettlerMap. This map is used for two reasons, first the AI decided where to found cities based upon this map (hence settler map) and second it is used in computing stability (max area of expansion perhaps). Those maps are in CvRhyes.cpp (in CvGameCoreDLL folder). The size again corresponds to the size of the map, however, the values are something like 10, 100, 400, 500. I don't know what those mean, if anyone can figure it out, it would be great.

It is not hard to get city name maps from the WB and I suppose I can do it from excel as well, however, I don't know what the values in the settler map mean and hence I cannot make one.

RFC Europe: Test version, Aug 15, 2008
http://rapidshare.com/files/137613788/RFCEurope_tst_Aug1508.zip.html

I gave it a quick try but I can't see anything wrong. You can build settlers and found cities, which I did, but only two as I stopped in 1800BC. A couple of things though. A barb animal turned up but no barbs so far and when I looked in WB several barb cities had formed (London? and Goteborg?). So it seems OK.
BTW When you resign your score goes on the vanilla HoF not the RFC one.

Maybe you've misunderstood me. After I made the page outlines for the civ list I started filling them in with my suggestions, esp. with Bulgaria,the Arabs, the Ottomans and the Cordobans. Everything you see there are MY suggestions only. There's nothing to stop you or anyone else from doing the same for all the other civs as well. They are opinions only. Nothing has been decided yet and won't be until somebody posts their ideas so everybody can look at them. Add anything you like to the wiki as suggestions. That's what it's there for. OK?:)
BTW I think you did promise settler maps for Russia and the Kievan Rus. What ever happened to them?

I used some from the wiki, but most I made up myself. I don't want to argue with you who decided the UHV. I've just posted my ideas, so now everyone can look at them.
Sorry about the settler maps. I'll try to finish them.

I used some from the wiki, but most I made up myself. I don't want to argue with you who decided the UHV. I've just posted my ideas, so now everyone can look at them.
Sorry about the settler maps. I'll try to finish them.

Sorry if I seem argumentative, but NOBODY has decided anything yet, so your ideas are just as valuable as mine or anybody elses's.:)

Sorry if I seem argumentative, but NOBODY has decided anything yet, so your ideas are just as valuable as mine or anybody elses's.:)

I know. So, how about we put our ideas into the thread and decide.

@3Miro I'll convert the settler maps in the wiki into CityManager.py.

jessiecat, did you actually build a settler? When you found a city did it give you an option to build a settler in the city. I cannot build settlers in my cities.

In Rhye's code, only barb animals spawn random, all barb warriors and horse arches an so on spawn at given dates on given spots (so I disabled it, will add our barb spawns). I don't know about barb cities, I might have missed something, do you have a save game by any chance. Were the cities exactly London and Goteborg or just in the general area.

I don't know about the HoF. I hope you installed the mod properly, i.e. in the archive there is a folder RFCEurope and you just put into Beyond the Sword\Mods\ folder. If you have done this, I don't know about the HoF. Will look at it. (Edit: I just tested it, it wrote in its own HoF for me. I am not sure what is going on)

ijnavy, that would be great. We all really appreciate help (especially right now it is just you, jessiecat, st. Lucifer, Metal Alloy Man and me, and initially we started like 10+ people maybe).

jessiecat, did you actually build a settler? When you found a city did it give you an option to build a settler in the city. I cannot build settlers in my cities.

In Rhye's code, only barb animals spawn random, all barb warriors and horse arches an so on spawn at given dates on given spots (so I disabled it, will add our barb spawns). I don't know about barb cities, I might have missed something, do you have a save game by any chance. Were the cities exactly London and Goteborg or just in the general area.

I don't know about the HoF. I hope you installed the mod properly, i.e. in the archive there is a folder RFCEurope and you just put into Beyond the Sword\Mods\ folder. If you have done this, I don't know about the HoF. Will look at it. (Edit: I just tested it, it wrote in its own HoF for me. I am not sure what is going on)

Yes, I had no trouble founding settlers. I think the difference is that I'm playing straight from the My Documents save which loads automatically in BTS. I haven't actually put my save in the folder. I've done this before with Rhye's unlocked starts and they play fine. Anyway, here's the save.

Yes, I had no trouble founding settlers. I think the difference is that I'm playing straight from the My Documents save which loads automatically in BTS. I haven't actually put my save in the folder. I've done this before with Rhye's unlocked starts and they play fine. Anyway, here's the save.

Something is wrong here. The save that you send me is on the RFCEurope map but not with the RFCEurope mod. In the begining of the WB save there is a line that states
ModPath=Mods\RFCEurope
That tells civ where to take the files for the graphics and everything else that Rhye and I have done. The original RFC WB file works because it knows where to take the mod from (RFC is already in the mods folder), however, RFCEurope is unknown mod (until you put it in the right folder).

Note some differences, the graphics is different (most notably the water in RFC is darker shade of blue). The other thing to check is the tech tree, the founding tech for Hinduism and the effect of the Pyramids are as in the BtS as opposed to BtS.

Something is wrong here. The save that you send me is on the RFCEurope map but not with the RFCEurope mod. In the begining of the WB save there is a line that states
ModPath=Mods\RFCEurope
That tells civ where to take the files for the graphics and everything else that Rhye and I have done. The original RFC WB file works because it knows where to take the mod from (RFC is already in the mods folder), however, RFCEurope is unknown mod (until you put it in the right folder).

Note some differences, the graphics is different (most notably the water in RFC is darker shade of blue). The other thing to check is the tech tree, the founding tech for Hinduism and the effect of the Pyramids are as in the BtS as opposed to BtS.

So how do I put it into the folder (I am a dunce at this)?:confused:

So how do I put it into the folder (I am a dunce at this)?:confused:

Don't worry it is not hard. You have already unzipped the file that you downloaded (you would not be able to see the WB save otherwise). The WB file is in a sub-folder PublicMaps in a folder RFCEurope. Right click on the RFCEurope and select copy.

Then you need to find the folder were Civ IV is installed. Open the Windows File Manager (windows explorer or however it is called, the easiest thing to do is to press the window button (between left alt and left control and E at the same time). The folder with Civ IV is probably in Drive C (under my computer), then
Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sig Meier's Civ IV\Beyond Sword\Mods
Go to that folder and right click and say paste. (in the mods folder you should see folders with the different mods names, i.e. broken star, afterworld....)

If the game is not in Program Files, it could be in My Documents\My Games\Firaxis Games ....

Tell me if you are having any problems.

PS If you have not done something like this before, it means that you are probably still playing RFC that ships with the BtS CD. It is a good idea to update it to the latest version 1.81

Don't worry it is not hard. You have already unzipped the file that you downloaded (you would not be able to see the WB save otherwise). The WB file is in a sub-folder PublicMaps in a folder RFCEurope. Right click on the RFCEurope and select copy.

Then you need to find the folder were Civ IV is installed. Open the Windows File Manager (windows explorer or however it is called, the easiest thing to do is to press the window button (between left alt and left control and E at the same time). The folder with Civ IV is probably in Drive C (under my computer), then
Program Files\Firaxis Games\Sig Meier's Civ IV\Beyond Sword\Mods
Go to that folder and right click and say paste. (in the mods folder you should see folders with the different mods names, i.e. broken star, afterworld....)

If the game is not in Program Files, it could be in My Documents\My Games\Firaxis Games ....

Tell me if you are having any problems.

PS If you have not done something like this before, it means that you are probably still playing RFC that ships with the BtS CD. It is a good idea to update it to the latest version 1.81

OK I'll try that tomorrow morning. It's nearly 3am here. What happened fairly
recently is that I upgraded BTS to 3.17 which has 1.181 RFC included so I'm
OK there now. Thanks for your help.:)

My thoughts on Hungary:

Spawn date 900 AD is absolutely correct, being the so called "Conquest of our Country" (the invasion of the Magyars into the Carpathian Basin) in 896 AD with the leadership of Arpad.)

UHV:
1. Don’t loose a city to barbarians (Mongols) by 1300.
2. Be the largest Empire in 1100.

is a good start. The following conditions should include:
3.a) Don’t loose a city to the Ottomans
OR if it wouldn't be ok:
3.b) Control all the cities in spawn area in 1700 (through the War of the Holy League /1683–1698/ Hungary regained it's form of 1526, recapturing the half of the country from the Ottomans.)
4. Be the first civilization adopting Free Religion (Transylvania (~ Hungary) was the first in Europe adopting individual freedom of religious expression in 1568 under the Edict of Turda for 4 different religions, such as: Lutherans, Calvinists, Unitarians and of course Catholics)
side note: a wonder like the Shwedagon Paya would not fit to this criteria, but this wonder has no connection to Europe at all - it should be banned from this mod.
5. Control Galicia and (maybe) Bosnia by 1800.
(or maybe No Ottoman city in Europe in 1750)

Hungary's favored religion is Catholic, not Orthodox. Roman catholic was Hungary's state religion from around 973, and still more than half of the population is roman catholic right now in Hungary - enough said.

My recommendations for leader:
Saint Stephen I ,
if not available as a leaderhead, my second choice would be Matthias Corvinus.

As for UB, I recommend a special replacement of castle, maybe adding bonus for military unit production, or more experience, or at least more defense bonus.

The choice for UP is not easy; I recommend "The Power of Loyalty".
Effect:
If Hereditary Rule civic is adopted, no city revolts occur caused by foreign culture; no negative stability points from foreign culture in a city.
Arguable.

__________________________________________

I have one observation: it wouldn't be wise to have more than one civ's final UHV criteria with the ending of "... in 1800", because that way it could be possible that more civs are winning in the same turn (the last one)! Drawn?
(E.g. "Control France, Burgundy, Norse, and Austria in 1800", "Have a fleet of 40 ships in 1800.", "Have a defensive pact with Spain, Portugal, and Hungary by 1800.", "Have 8,000 gold in 1800.".


Regards,
Andrrew

Settlers issue: In RFC Byzantium can't build settlers (coded) so perhaps you forgot to delete that part of the code?

My thoughts on Hungary:

Spawn date 900 AD is absolutely correct, being the so called "Conquest of our Country" (the invasion of the Magyars into the Carpathian Basin) in 896 AD with the leadership of Arpad.)

UHV:


is a good start. The following conditions should include:
3.a) Don’t loose a city to the Ottomans
OR if it wouldn't be ok:
3.b) Control all the cities in spawn area in 1700 (through the War of the Holy League /1683–1698/ Hungary regained it's form of 1526, recapturing the half of the country from the Ottomans.)
4. Be the first civilization adopting Free Religion (Transylvania (~ Hungary) was the first in Europe adopting individual freedom of religious expression in 1568 under the Edict of Turda for 4 different religions, such as: Lutherans, Calvinists, Unitarians and of course Catholics)
side note: a wonder like the Shwedagon Paya would not fit to this criteria, but this wonder has no connection to Europe at all - it should be banned from this mod.
5. Control Galicia and (maybe) Bosnia by 1800.
(or maybe No Ottoman city in Europe in 1750)

Hungary's favored religion is Catholic, not Orthodox. Roman catholic was Hungary's state religion from around 973, and still more than half of the population is roman catholic right now in Hungary - enough said.

My recommendations for leader:
Saint Stephen I ,
if not available as a leaderhead, my second choice would be Matthias Corvinus.

As for UB, I recommend a special replacement of castle, maybe adding bonus for military unit production, or more experience, or at least more defense bonus.

The choice for UP is not easy; I recommend "The Power of Loyalty".
Effect:
If Hereditary Rule civic is adopted, no city revolts occur caused by foreign culture; no negative stability points from foreign culture in a city.
Arguable.

__________________________________________

I have one observation: it wouldn't be wise to have more than one civ's final UHV criteria with the ending of "... in 1800", because that way it could be possible that more civs are winning in the same turn (the last one)! Drawn?
(E.g. "Control France, Burgundy, Norse, and Austria in 1800", "Have a fleet of 40 ships in 1800.", "Have a defensive pact with Spain, Portugal, and Hungary by 1800.", "Have 8,000 gold in 1800.".


Regards,
Andrrew

I like your ideas on Hungary. Can I incorporate them in the wiki? Similiar contributions regarding
other civs would be welcome too, like Poland maybe? Anyway, well done.:goodjob:

EDIT Added your ideas to the wiki as well as ijnavy's. Some major gaps with a few civs still. I agree
about not having so many UHVs in 1800, also not too many civs with same unique building either (like
citadels for example).

Settlers issue: In RFC Byzantium can't build settlers (coded) so perhaps you forgot to delete that part of the code?

Do you know where by any chance. In general Byzantines in RFCEurope are not the Byzantines in RFC. In RFC 600AD start, Byzantines == Celtia. In the test version, Byzantines == Egypt (play 50 turns and look a the he history info screen, it says Egypt in the info screen). That does not mean that settler building was not associated with the civ itself. Anyways, do you know where in the code the Settlers were disabled?

Kingdom of Germany:

UU:Landsnechkt

UB:Rathaus

UP:?

Kingdom of England

UU:Yeoman

UB:Royal Exchange

UU:All archery units start with extra promotions?

Kingdom of Portugal

UU:Carrack

UB:Feitora

UP:Power of Sea?(builds colonial projects twice as fast or availiable with earlier techs?)

Austria

UU:Hussar

UB:?

UP:Power of conscription?(can draft 2 units per-turn instead of 1?)

Ottomans

UU:Janissary

UB:Hammam

UP:Same as RFC

Kingdom of the Netherlands

UU:East Indiamen or Swiss Mercenary?

UB: Dike

UP:Same as RFC but with land units?

P.S.-Feel free to add these to the wiki.

Metal Alloy Man, consider that out mod spawns only trough 1800AD and as the name suggests it is as Eurocentric as it can be. I am not sure of the value of the Redcoats, those would come in late in the game in all cases. All naval UP would be pretty much useless since the game in on a basically Pangea map, most of the action would be on the land. (possible exceptions are the Brits (on and island), Vikings (sea raids) and Byzantines (sea trade)). Portugal's UP is useless here.

On the Byzantines:
the power of Byzantine stability is good, the issue that I have is how to implements it. I don't think it should be connected to a Civic, we have not yet agreed on the civics in general and since we spawn the middle ages, all of the governments should be different flavors of Hereditary Rule anyway. I wish to see the Byzantine power connected to Constantinople, the most powerful city in Europe in the early middle ages.
Another question is, what does collapse mean? Poor stability can lead to two things,
1. cities in the Empire declare independence, which has happened to the Byzantine outer territories. Justinian held the entire Mediterranean, but they lost it and not though external invasion, but because they could not hold it.
2. poor stability could mean total civil war and complete collapse of the civilization. As a human player you don't want poor stability since cities would go independent (with or without civil war), as the AI it would mean that the Byzantines would simply be slowly stripped to the capital only.

Stopping civil war would have small or null effect for both Human and AI players. Stopping declaration of independence in general would be equivalent to removing the stability parameter for the Byzantines altogether and would also be historically inaccurate.

My proposal is: As long as the Byzantines hold Constantinople, no city in the core of the empire (that is the southern Balkans: Adrianopolis, Thessaloníki, Athens and cities in the region) can declare independence.

Byzantines could still lose cities to Bulgaria, Turks and Arabs and everyone else trough conquest/flip. Byzantines could loose cities in the outer territories ( Asia, Africa, Western Europe ), however, once stripped to the core, the Byzantines would be immune to instability. The Byzantine Empire should start huge and slowly loose its power and territories (just as Rome in RFC), but the core would not collapse unless conquered by force. This would also counter the stability hit from loosing all the outer territories.

This would be historically consistent, since the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople itself held against the Turks for 60 years after everything else on the Balkans was conquered.

What do you think?

On Hungary:
I don't know who put Hungary as Orthodox, obviously wrong.

Mongols right now are simply massive barbarian invasions, but the Russians would get the worst of it. I don't know how this relates to Hungary. Also it could be just too easy, unless we make powerful barbs spawn right next to Hungary bypassing Russia. It could be done.

I am not sure about the largest empire in Europe, in 1400 Turkey (even restricted to Europe) was larger than Hungary. I don't think Hungary has ever reached size comparable to the large empire Byzantine, HRE, Ottomans and even Bulgaria (at Simeon or Ivan Asen II).
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/eceurope/hunpre1526.gif
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/eceurope/hunpre1241.gif

The third UHV, I like that (have to do some reading on the matter, but I like the idea). We can implement Shedagoya as simply another wonder and name it Edict of Turda, since it is the European equivalent of Shedagoya.

Good Byzantine UP 3Miro and I edited my post above to be more realistic for this mod based on your suggestions. The only question is how to code it which I'm pretty sure Umarth knows how to do if you need help as he instructed ijnavy on how to code the playable Byzantines UP which is very similar.

On Hungary:
I don't know who put Hungary as Orthodox, obviously wrong.

Mongols right now are simply massive barbarian invasions, but the Russians would get the worst of it. I don't know how this relates to Hungary. Also it could be just too easy, unless we make powerful barbs spawn right next to Hungary bypassing Russia. It could be done.

I am not sure about the largest empire in Europe, in 1400 Turkey (even restricted to Europe) was larger than Hungary. I don't think Hungary has ever reached size comparable to the large empire Byzantine, HRE, Ottomans and even Bulgaria (at Simeon or Ivan Asen II).
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/eceurope/hunpre1526.gif
http://www.zum.de/whkmla/histatlas/eceurope/hunpre1241.gif

The third UHV, I like that (have to do some reading on the matter, but I like the idea). We can implement Shedagoya as simply another wonder and name it Edict of Turda, since it is the European equivalent of Shedagoya.

Not sure about the Mongol event. Historically they penetrated as far as Germany, the Balkans and Syria. Our event should be pretty massive even if it was shortlived timewise. So Hungary never losing a city just isn't realistic. Every civ in central Europe would suffer.
Also it's unlikely Hungary could become the biggest power at any point given the pressure of surrounding civs.

Also agree with you on Redcoats. Riflemen never appeared as units before 1803 even in Britain where they were restricted to sniping before then. Rifling, therefore, shouldn't even be in our tech tree IMO.
It's one of the reasons we're stopping in 1800, isn't it?

Your comments about UP's related to the sea make sense as Europe is basically a pangea in our mod. Maybe a major rethink on all sea-related powers is in order, I think.:)

Austria

UU:Hussar


Actually it's quite wrong. Hussar cavalry has no connection to Austria. Hussar refers to a number of types of light cavalry created in Hungary in the 15th century and used throughout Europe (and even in America) since the 18th century.

It means it should be the UU for Hungary.

( Hussar article in the Encyclopedia Britannica: http://britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277525/hussar )


On Hungary:
Mongols right now are simply massive barbarian invasions, but the Russians would get the worst of it. I don't know how this relates to Hungary. Also it could be just too easy, unless we make powerful barbs spawn right next to Hungary bypassing Russia. It could be done.


The truth is, the mongols didn't conquerd or razed the large hungarian cities with castles, they only did some pillaging. (E.g. burning those villages in the real life invasion of Hungary in 1241-1242 is pillaging village improvements in Civ.) Maybe those barbs should be coded to first pillage everything before they attack a city with garrison (no siege happened in history, only pillage and battles happened in open land like the Battle of Mohi or what)

On Hungary:
I am not sure about the largest empire in Europe, in 1400 Turkey (even restricted to Europe) was larger than Hungary. I don't think Hungary has ever reached size comparable to the large empire Byzantine, HRE, Ottomans and even Bulgaria (at Simeon or Ivan Asen II).


So we should rethinkthe Hungarian UHV. Actually the UHV is not the modelling of real history. (The UHV for Spain, Aztec, Inca, Mongolia etc. in RFC is quite anti-historic.) The point is to create UHV conditions that were the goals for the current nation in that time.
Being the largest nation with Hungary would be a great challenge, harder than build some cathedrals, adopt a civic, or control all of spawn area in 1700. (Of course the AI would never be able to complete it.) Control the most territory in Europe in 1380 would be nice. Actually Louis I the Great conquered Dalmatia, Galicia, Bosnia and Bulgaria, became the king of Poland, defeated Naples, vassalized Moldavia and Wallachia, and became the largest kingdom in Europe in 1382.
http://mek.oszk.hu/01200/01267/html/img/nagy/06-181.jpg
(the blue color represents the borders in 1382)
This criteria would cover other conditions: take control of Galicia ((Hungarian kings tried to conquer 'Halych' several times)), Bosnia, and the regions I mentioned eariler to be big enough. Maybe with pushing back the Ottomans a little bit (, wich was a historical goal for Hungary too, just mention a few attacking campaigns: 1396 so callled crusade of Nicopolis, 1443-44 the "long campaign"). The only thing I'm thinking about is to be the largest in 1380 or in 1500? (Maybe 160 turns aren't enough for all this expansion, and with 1500 there can be more war vs. the Ottomans.)

So if only 3 criterias are allowed for the UHV, my choice is:

1. Control the most territory in Europe in 1380. (or 1500 maybe)
2. Be the first to adopt Free Religion
3. Never lose a city to barbarians or Ottomans by 1650

[EDIT: Added to wiki.
Changed UB name to Stronghold. (Citadel is already the spanish UB.) My advise for the effect: +20% military unit production. (Hungary's going to have lots of wars, but that 20% isn't that much for conquering everybody.)

If the leader will be Stephen I, his favourite civic is organized religion.
Will the civics be the same anyway? ]
_______________________________________________

1 more question: Where can I post the names of Great People for RFCE? Is it okay to just post them here?


Regards,
Andrrew

Good idea. You can post them in the wiki.

So, I'm planning on doing the barbarian spawnings tomorrow. I'll try to make the Mongol spawn as historically correct as I can. I'm planning on bypassing Russia for some of the spawnings, because then they would just collapse.

Can someone decide if anything should be changed in my independent city list, because they and barbarian spawnings are in the same file, so I'm going to do them tomorrow too.

Finally, I'll convert the city names in the wiki, (and add Russia's) to the CityNamesManger.py.

Actually it's quite wrong. Hussar cavalry has no connection to Austria. Hussar refers to a number of types of light cavalry created in Hungary in the 15th century and used throughout Europe (and even in America) since the 18th century.

It means it should be the UU for Hungary.

( Hussar article in the Encyclopedia Britannica: http://britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277525/hussar )




The truth is, the mongols didn't conquerd or razed the large hungarian cities with castles, they only did some pillaging. (E.g. burning those villages in the real life invasion of Hungary in 1241-1242 is pillaging village improvements in Civ.) Maybe those barbs should be coded to first pillage everything before they attack a city with garrison (no siege happened in history, only pillage and battles happened in open land like the Battle of Mohi or what)



So we should rethinkthe Hungarian UHV. Actually the UHV is not the modelling of real history. (The UHV for Spain, Aztec, Inca, Mongolia etc. in RFC is quite anti-historic.) The point is to create UHV conditions that were the goals for the current nation in that time.
Being the largest nation with Hungary would be a great challenge, harder than build some cathedrals, adopt a civic, or control all of spawn area in 1700. (Of course the AI would never be able to complete it.) Control the most territory in Europe in 1380 would be nice. Actually Louis I the Great conquered Dalmatia, Galicia, Bosnia and Bulgaria, became the king of Poland, defeated Naples, vassalized Moldavia and Wallachia, and became the largest kingdom in Europe in 1382.
http://mek.oszk.hu/01200/01267/html/img/nagy/06-181.jpg
(the blue color represents the borders in 1382)
This criteria would cover other conditions: take control of Galicia ((Hungarian kings tried to conquer 'Halych' several times)), Bosnia, and the regions I mentioned eariler to be big enough. Maybe with pushing back the Ottomans a little bit (, wich was a historical goal for Hungary too, just mention a few attacking campaigns: 1396 so callled crusade of Nicopolis, 1443-44 the "long campaign"). The only thing I'm thinking about is to be the largest in 1380 or in 1500? (Maybe 160 turns aren't enough for all this expansion, and with 1500 there can be more war vs. the Ottomans.)

So if only 3 criterias are allowed for the UHV, my choice is:

1. Control the most territory in Europe in 1380. (or 1500 maybe)
2. Be the first to adopt Free Religion
3. Never lose a city to barbarians or Ottomans by 1650

[EDIT: Added to wiki.
Changed UB name to Stronghold. (Citadel is already the spanish UB.) My advise for the effect: +20% military unit production. (Hungary's going to have lots of wars, but that 20% isn't that much for conquering everybody.)

If the leader will be Stephen I, his favourite civic is organized religion.
Will the civics be the same anyway? ]
_______________________________________________

1 more question: Where can I post the names of Great People for RFCE? Is it okay to just post them here?


Regards,
Andrrew

Good ideas for Hungary. Any chance on doing the same for Poland and Austria? As far as great people, I'll add a sub-heading to each civ on the wiki as well as one for favoured civic.

EDIT; Made above changes to wiki civ lists. Feel free fill them in, folks.

One suggestion, if I may. As the mod ends in 1800, before Rifling, maybe we make UU's for each civ fairly early so they have naximum impact on gameplay. Thus none should be gunpowder units, I think?:)

for the ottomans, a type of grand canon (is that how you spell it?) would be good since they were one of the first people to adopt gunpowder canon's

for the ottomans, a type of grand canon (is that how you spell it?) would be good since they were one of the first people to adopt gunpowder canon's

I think the Ottomans and the Arabs should get gunpowder first due to their trade links with China. Giving the Ottomans the janissary (upgrades with gunpowder) as UU would reflect that. I'd also suggest some kind of bombard which upgrades from the catapult and later can be upgraded to cannons. Extra units we could have are hand gunners ( upgrade to arbusqiers and then to musketmen) and "Nafatun" (naptha grenade throwers) esp. for the Arabs and the Ottomans.:)

Maybe something like Early Cannon to replace trebuchet, it would be weaker than a normal cannon but you would get it a lot earlier.

on the contrary, the ottomans were the first to develop HUGE feild cannons late in the game, or maybe both:)(Medival 2 anyone?) and yes I agree the middle east should start with gunpowder but you'd have to give europe an advantage as well

on the contrary, the ottomans were the first to develop HUGE feild cannons late in the game, or maybe both:)(Medival 2 anyone?) and yes I agree the middle east should start with gunpowder but you'd have to give europe an advantage as well

Just a historical timeline to put things in perpective:

1187 -trebuchet first used by Saladin in Egypt against Crusaders
1248 -siege cannons first used by Cordobans at siege of Seville
1260 -hand cannons first used Arabs in Egypt against the Mongols
------------
1345- first use of hand cannons in Europe at Crecy by the English
1380 -first use of siege cannons by Russians
1453 -first use of Turkish Bombard (or Great Gun) at fall of Constantinople

Yes, the Arabs had the advantage at first (including steel swords as well)
but the rest of Europe caught up quickly once gunpowder and cannonry was
more widely used. This would easily be shown in our game by quicker research
by European civs after 1400 (ie the Renaissance).:)

Maybe something like Early Cannon to replace trebuchet, it would be weaker than a normal cannon but you would get it a lot earlier.

I think that's what I described in post 611.:)

One suggestion, if I may. As the mod ends in 1800, before Rifling, maybe we make UU's for each civ fairly early so they have naximum impact on gameplay. Thus none should be gunpowder units, I think?:)

I agree, but Hussar is not a gunpowder unit, it's light cavalry with arms like swords or sabers. They were usually raiding cavalry, used since XIV-XV. century. Maybe a commando promoted light cavalry? I don't know the tech tree and the units of RFCE. Will there be light cavalry at all?

_____

The names of the great people should be posted in english or in
their original language? In Western or Eastern name order? (forename-surname or surname-forename?)
How many per type per civ at minimum?
Yeah, and what about abnormal polish/hungarian characters? (like ą ć ę ł ń ó ś ź ż ü ő etc. ) Do Civ4 like them?

I think that's what I described in post 611.:)

When I opened this page, your post hadn't appeared yet. But hey, I gave your idea a name! :D

Where can I get the latest version of the map?
Never mind, found it.

I agree, but Hussar is not a gunpowder unit, it's light cavalry with arms like swords or sabers. They were usually raiding cavalry, used since XIV-XV. century. Maybe a commando promoted light cavalry? I don't know the tech tree and the units of RFCE. Will there be light cavalry at all?

_____

The names of the great people should be posted in english or in
their original language? In Western or Eastern name order? (forename-surname or surname-forename?)
How many per type per civ at minimum?
Yeah, and what about abnormal polish/hungarian characters? (like ą ć ę ł ń ó ś ź ż ü ő etc. ) Do Civ4 like them?

I agree very much with having Hussars as raiding light cavalry that could gain uprades even with gunpowder, but they could start as early UU's. And yes, I think all civs will have both light and heavier cavalry. See my proposals for the Arabs and the Cordobans as examples of different types.

You can list as many great people as you like but try for 3 of each type if you can. Again, see my list for Cordoba which I started today. I think it's best to use civ-specific spellings if possible but avoid non-English characters like the ones you posted for now.:)

In considering UHVs for different civ, let us agree on general philosophy. Since the mod derives from RFC, we need to consider the idea behind the UHVs in RFC. IMO, there is a specific pattern. It is sometimes hard to be specific (what do 500 culture points represent in real history), but the patter in as follows.

For every civ, there are 2 UHVs that correspond to things that the civ achieved and made impact in the world (one way or another), the third is something the civ failed (maybe tried and failed), but could have made huge impact. Needless to say, all UHVs should be "emblematic" to the civ.

Examples:
Egypt: They were great in the early ancient times in terms of culture and they did build those wonder, however, they fell before the Romans. Consider Egypt being successful in establishing a culture equal to the Greko-Roman one, we could have Greco-Roman-Egyptian or potentially cultural competition.

Greece: Be first in Drama and Philosophy, build the wonders. However, despite the fact that the Greeks were dominant in the Mediterranean sea, they never managed to extend that beyond and were never part of the Age of Exploration. Greece's culture was never carried directly outside the Mediterranean.

Rome reached might and glory, but was overrun by the barbarian hordes, imagine it had survives (not just the eastern part oft it).

China in its time was way ahead of anyone else in the world, but they were overrun by the Mongols.

Maya formed the largest early native American empire, had the knowledge of the Calendar and had the temples, but did not survive to carry on their legacy.

Portuguese were the first great explorers that made a lasting impact, but countries such as Japan soon closed borders with them because of the Portuguese fanaticism and the empire dwindled.

Spain made the first huge empire across the ocean with the conquests of Pizarro and Cortés, bt could not keep it and fell behind the later colonial empires (England and France).

We should follow similar pattern in RFC.

For Hungary in particular, I think it is important to place the Crusades against the Turks. If the Hungarians had managed to liberate Bulgaria and other Balkan countries, Europe today would have looked in a very different way. I propose a victory of the sort of: destroy some number of Turkish units (30?) or destroy Turkey altogether. (cause enough damage to Turkey or destroy them altogether, the victory is automatic if Byzantines survive strong enough to destroy Turkey, the same way Spain gets part of their UHV if Germany destroys th Netherlands).

In a related matter, Free Religion is a good victory, but we may have to pause on it until we are clear on the Tech Tree and the civics. I don't think we can speak of "Free" Religion in the middle ages, the best they had was Religious "Tolerance", which works OK.

I see, but Hungary achieved the first two conditions (Hungary was the largest kingdom in Europe in 1380 meanwhile the Holy Roman Empire was in pieces; Hungary was the first to adopt "free religion" or at least tolerance), and only failed the third one: Never lose a city to barbarians or Ottomans by 1650.

I think we should model the Ottoman-Hungarian Wars giving the other side, (the Ottomans) the motivation to attack hungary. (Hungary was on defense after 1450.) We should give the Ottomans lots of starting units and ships so that they can get to the Balkans around super-defended Constantinople. One of their condition should be to control everything south of the Danube (or simply control Hungary) as it happened in real history by 1600.

After all maybe 'Control the most territory in Europe in 1500' would be better for Hungary, so they will be forced to attack the Ottomans (to get some land in the Balkans) and not just defend.
If you (3Miro) really-really don't like this condition, in the last resort we can change it to "destroy Turkey".

________________

Huh, uploaded hungarian GP names. I had to do some serious research on midieval Hungary to find some GS and GE names :ack:

PS to ljessiecat: Cuirassier is spelled cuIRAssier not cuRAIssier :crazyeye:
Oh yes, one more thing: cuirassiers were quite heavily armored compared to hussars; I don't think it's a good idea to get the unit art from BTS cuirassier.

I see, but Hungary achieved the first two conditions (Hungary was the largest kingdom in Europe in 1380 meanwhile the Holy Roman Empire was in pieces; Hungary was the first to adopt "free religion" or at least tolerance), and only failed the third one: Never lose a city to barbarians or Ottomans by 1650.

I think we should model the Ottoman-Hungarian Wars giving the other side, (the Ottomans) the motivation to attack hungary. (Hungary was on defense after 1450.) We should give the Ottomans lots of starting units and ships so that they can get to the Balkans around super-defended Constantinople. One of their condition should be to control everything south of the Danube (or simply control Hungary) as it happened in real history by 1600.

After all maybe 'Control the most territory in Europe in 1500' would be better for Hungary, so they will be forced to attack the Ottomans (to get some land in the Balkans) and not just defend.
If you (3Miro) really-really don't like this condition, in the last resort we can change it to "destroy Turkey".

________________

Huh, uploaded hungarian GP names. I had to do some serious research on midieval Hungary to find some GS and GE names :ack:

PS to ljessiecat: Cuirassier is spelled cuIRAssier not cuRAIssier :crazyeye:
Oh yes, one more thing: cuirassiers were quite heavily armored compared to hussars; I don't think it's a good idea to get the unit art from BTS cuirassier.

I agree with you on Hungary esp. largest empire by 1500 and free religion, though the 3rd. condition would be tough with a strong Mongol event plus the Ottoman expansion.
You're right about Cuirassiers. Maybe a medium cav unit if we can allow three types. Thanks for the spell-check too. I always mess up that one.
(Just like some others do with medieval.;)):)

I see, but Hungary achieved the first two conditions (Hungary was the largest kingdom in Europe in 1380 meanwhile the Holy Roman Empire was in pieces; Hungary was the first to adopt "free religion" or at least tolerance), and only failed the third one: Never lose a city to barbarians or Ottomans by 1650.

I think we should model the Ottoman-Hungarian Wars giving the other side, (the Ottomans) the motivation to attack hungary. (Hungary was on defense after 1450.) We should give the Ottomans lots of starting units and ships so that they can get to the Balkans around super-defended Constantinople. One of their condition should be to control everything south of the Danube (or simply control Hungary) as it happened in real history by 1600.

After all maybe 'Control the most territory in Europe in 1500' would be better for Hungary, so they will be forced to attack the Ottomans (to get some land in the Balkans) and not just defend.
If you (3Miro) really-really don't like this condition, in the last resort we can change it to "destroy Turkey".


OK sounds good. We ca go with it for now and see how the game play works when we get to the Hungarians.

Here's what I found on RFCE wiki:

Rfce Austria
AUSTRIA start: 1160AD
Leaders: MAXIMILIAN I or PHILIP II
Philip II was the king of Spain, he never ruled Austria.

Rfce Germany
GERMANY start: 940AD
Leaders: CHARLEMAGNE or OTTO I
Charlemagne was frankish, died 100 years before spawn. Funny.
Otto I would be ok however.


The Kingdom of Germany refers to the German Empire (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation). The Duchy of Austria (the Habsburgs) was only a part of the Empire until 1438. With this logic we should add Saxony, Bohemia or Brandenburg as playable civs with similar spawns like 1000-1100.

Considering the fact that the Habsburgs became the H.R. Emperors after 1438, (and some of them were emperors after 1273,) we should spawn them in 1273 (or maybe 1278 after the Battle of Dürnkrut), and we should add them the historical goal to reunite the Germany. I saw on RFCE wiki history that Austria's spawn date was originally 1278. I have no idea why has this been changed to 1160. It was a duchy, a province in 1160, not an individual nation or civilization.
And we should really take care of Germany to collapse by 1278. (Maybe a forced event in 1273: the die out of the hereditary family?) In this case, we should create the UHV for Germany so they can finish it before 1278.

We could add Prussia too following this idea, with an 1640 or 1701 start and with the historical goal to reunite Germany. But maybe we don't want a civ that late.

Any toughts on it?

Here's what I found on RFCE wiki:

Rfce Austria
AUSTRIA start: 1160AD
Leaders: MAXIMILIAN I or PHILIP II
Philip II was the king of Spain, he never ruled Austria.

Rfce Germany
GERMANY start: 940AD
Leaders: CHARLEMAGNE or OTTO I
Charlemagne was frankish, died 100 years before spawn. Funny.
Otto I would be ok however.


The Kingdom of Germany refers to the German Empire (Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation). The Duchy of Austria (the Habsburgs) was only a part of the Empire until 1438. With this logic we should add Saxony, Bohemia or Brandenburg as playable civs with similar spawns like 1000-1100.

Considering the fact that the Habsburgs became the H.R. Emperors after 1438, (and some of them were emperors after 1273,) we should spawn them in 1273 (or maybe 1278 after the Battle of Dürnkrut), and we should add them the historical goal to reunite the Germany. I saw on RFCE wiki history that Austria's spawn date was originally 1278. I have no idea why has this been changed to 1160. It was a duchy, a province in 1160, not an individual nation or civilization.
And we should really take care of Germany to collapse by 1278. (Maybe a forced event in 1273: the die out of the hereditary family?) In this case, we should create the UHV for Germany so they can finish it before 1278.

We could add Prussia too following this idea, with an 1640 or 1701 start and with the historical goal to reunite Germany. But maybe we don't want a civ that late.

Any toughts on it?

You're right about the names. I'd replace Philip II with Leopold I. And Charlemagne with Charles IV. The problem with the Hapsburgs is that they were Holy Roman Emperors thus ruling Austria, Spain and Germany at various times, sometimes all at once. Charles V, HRE (or Carlos I of Spain) was succeeded by his sons, Philip II of Spain and Ferdinand I (HRE). But our mod has all three countries as totally separate and in competition with each other, however innaccurate that might be historically.

The spawn dates for Germany and Austria were debated at length at the time so what we decided was a compromise based partly on game balance. Same with Burgundy and France. Personally I think having an Austrian civ as totally separate from a Germany or HRE is awkward historically. But I don't think that having a Germany pop up several times throughout the game would be playable for the human player. Nor do I see the case for a shortlived Prussian civ as useful either. I'd leave Germany much as Rhye has done along with the built-in instability issues.:)

[...]
The spawn dates for Germany and Austria were debated at length at the time so what we decided was a compromise based partly on game balance. Same with Burgundy and France. Personally I think having an Austrian civ as totally separate from a Germany or HRE is awkward historically. But I don't think that having a Germany pop up several times throughout the game would be playable for the human player. Nor do I see the case for a shortlived Prussian civ as useful either. I'd leave Germany much as Rhye has done along with the built-in instability issues.:)

Thanks, I know history :) In my opinion, we should change the name of Austria to Habsburgs/Habsburg Empire and spawn them on 1278. I think balance would be ok if they'd start with the techs and units adequate for the year 1278.
It could be balanced easily, and that way the mod could be more historically accurate.

__________

As leader for the Papacy, I would recommend Pope Leo X. or Pope Gregory VII, as the most influental popes in the 500-1800 era.

Thanks, I know history :) In my opinion, we should change the name of Austria to Habsburgs/Habsburg Empire and spawn them on 1278. I think balance would be ok if they'd start with the techs and units adequate for the year 1278.
It could be balanced easily, and that way the mod could be more historically accurate.

__________

As leader for the Papacy, I would recommend Pope Leo X. or Pope Gregory VII, as the most influental popes in the 500-1800 era.

As much as I might agree with your ideas, I don't think we'll be changing civs at this stage,
or at least until we can get the beta version up for play testing. Though if you want to call
Austria the Hapsburg Empire I wouldn't object. As far as popes go, feel free to add those
names as you wish, but of course the Papal States won't be playable in this mod.:)

As much as I might agree with your ideas, I don't think we'll be changing civs at this stage,
or at least until we can get the beta version up for play testing. Though if you want to call
Austria the Hapsburg Empire I wouldn't object. As far as popes go, feel free to add those
names as you wish, but of course the Papal States won't be playable in this mod.:)

We debated calling Austria the Hapsburg Empire, but rejected it in favor of Austria on grounds that it made more sense to tie it to one geographical region than to a dynasty that owned various parts of Europe at different times. There's an argument for each, but I think going with Austria is less complicated.


The addition of Prussia was widely debated as well, and we decided against it due to the mod's timeframe - they wouldn't have enough turns to really be very interesting. All of us will agree that there are problems with 'Germany', but the Civ engine's not as versatile as the Europa Universalis III engine - it makes more sense to do it this way than to have competition between Bohemia, Saxony, Bavaria, Hesse, Brandenburg, etc.

The balance issue is a big deal, and to some extent can be tweaked in beta - but when imbalances are obvious even before we get the thing up and running, we've got to correct for those when possible, even if that means bending history a little bit. The big balance issues that I see are:

1. How do we accurately represent the strengths and weaknesses of the Byzantine empire? If they begin with the full empire, they're likely to be a superpower for the duration - especially if their UP is stability-related, which we're all in agreement that it should be. The goal with the Byzantines is to allow them to survive for hundreds of years as their empire is chipped away piece by piece - but given the importance of infrastructure and longevity to culture, cottage growth, research, and unit buildup, we've got to be careful that we don't make them invincible.

2. How do we keep England from turtling on that magnificent island and building up into an unchallenged superpower? The rest of Europe never quite figured it out until the modern era...we've got to make it a little easier for the AI. The proposed solution is to give them little in the way of luxury resources (making large city growth difficult) and put them into regular conflict with France.

3. How do we keep France from dominating the entire game? The solution thus far has been to make large areas of French territory independent (historically accurate), and to move Burgundy's starting date backwards (historically inaccurate). This seems like the best way to handle it; they'll ideally also be in conflict with England for much of the scope of the mod.

4. What do we do about Germany? See above. It's not a perfect solution by any means, but it's what we've got. Prussia's out, but if anyone has a well-thought-out counterproposal, we're willing to listen.


Also, as Jessiecat stated, the Papacy is unplayable.

1. How about for the Byzantines (in the next version), they get all of their territory at the time. Then Bulgaria and Arabia flip many cities. Then, Arabia conquers Egypt and Bulgaria will keep attacking the Balkan cities. Then, the Avar barbs would come and take a couple more cities. Finally, the Ottomans flip most of Anatolia. The Byzantines will not be invincible.

2. One of England's UHV could be to control France, or we could just make the English want to attack France with the AIwars.py.

I'm almost finished the barbs.py, and am starting AIwars.py, Consts.py, and CityNameManager.py.
Can I please have all the settlermaps completed so far that are not in the wiki?
Finally, are Celtic, Native, independent1, and independent2: Slavic Independent, Germanic Independent, Celtic independent, and North African independent in RFCEurope.

1. How about for the Byzantines (in the next version), they get all of their territory at the time. Then Bulgaria and Arabia flip many cities. Then, Arabia conquers Egypt and Bulgaria will keep attacking the Balkan cities. Then, the Avar barbs would come and take a couple more cities. Finally, the Ottomans flip most of Anatolia. The Byzantines will not be invincible.

2. One of England's UHV could be to control France, or we could just make the English want to attack France with the AIwars.py.

I'm almost finished the barbs.py, and am starting AIwars.py, Consts.py, and CityNameManager.py.
Can I please have all the settlermaps completed so far that are not in the wiki?
Finally, are Celtic, Native, independent1, and independent2: Slavic Independent, Germanic Independent, Celtic independent, and North African independent in RFCEurope.

Just an update on settler maps;

The ones in the wiki files still to be coded are Arabs(covers Al Andalus as well), Byzantines, Bulgarians and Ottomans.

I believe you were working on Russia/Kievan Rus?

That leaves the following settler maps to do:
Norse
Sweden
Germany
Austria
Hungary(being done by Andrrew?)
Poland

Any volunteers?:)

Finally, are Celtic, Native, independent1, and independent2: Slavic Independent, Germanic Independent, Celtic independent, and North African independent in RFCEurope.

No, there is no way to distinguish between Indep1 and Indep2. In RFC, on top of the indeps, there are also Natives and Celts (and Byzantines that are actually the Celts in 600AD). I don't know who put the different types of indeps (slavic and so on), I don't see how they would work. The reason why there are two independents is so that there would not be a large independent state anywhere on the map, just cities. According to the code, indeps go from indep1 to indep2 and back all the time, to ensure one does not get larger than the other and gets to control too much territory. If we make Slavic indeps, then all of them would belong to a single player and would work together, i.e. Serbs with Croats. It would be historically inaccurate since those fought each other most of the time.

Bottom line, creating large number of Slavic, Germanic and so on indeps, would force all the indeps of the corresponding regions to work together, which defeats the meaning of indeps. We would simply be introducing large and strong non-playable nations.

No, there is no way to distinguish between Indep1 and Indep2. In RFC, on top of the indeps, there are also Natives and Celts (and Byzantines that are actually the Celts in 600AD). I don't know who put the different types of indeps (slavic and so on), I don't see how they would work. The reason why there are two independents is so that there would not be a large independent state anywhere on the map, just cities. According to the code, indeps go from indep1 to indep2 and back all the time, to ensure one does not get larger than the other and gets to control too much territory. If we make Slavic indeps, then all of them would belong to a single player and would work together, i.e. Serbs with Croats. It would be historically inaccurate since those fought each other most of the time.

Bottom line, creating large number of Slavic, Germanic and so on indeps, would force all the indeps of the corresponding regions to work together, which defeats the meaning of indeps. We would simply be introducing large and strong non-playable nations.


I don't know why all those different types of indys are listed separately on the wiki. They should
just be independent in my opinion. The only one I might make a case for are the six in Iberia
and France which could represent the Visigothic kindom (see map below) which would collapse
by 720 anyway. And maybe the Celts as well. Even then, they wouldn't be playable, so why
bother? It should just be indy 1 and indy2 in the code, as you say.:)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6179859

This mod has a lot of leaderheads and additional unit graphics. I wonder if we could ask the developers to use some of their material. What do you guys think?

What about the Papal states. Will they be represented as the Celts?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6179859

This mod has a lot of leaderheads and additional unit graphics. I wonder if we could ask the developers to use some of their material. What do you guys think?

I like some of the leaderheads so why not. I'd also suggest the BTS Charlemagne mod esp. for some of the unit graphics.

@ijnavy. I didn't think we wanted the Papal States as a playable civ. Maybe just for the AP and doling out papal pikemen as mercenaries like in the Charlemagne mod. I'd like the Celts to stay as an independent civ as in RFC and maybe the Visigoths too, as I described earlier.

So there will be 5 unplayable civs: Independent1, Independent2, Celts, Visigoths, and Papal States?

So there will be 5 unplayable civs: Independent1, Independent2, Celts, Visigoths, and Papal States?

I don't know about that. Indy 1 and Indy2 are not civs. It's just part of the code for the independents I think, as 3Miro has decribed it. Papal States would be unplayable but are they a civ? They won't be doing anything like building something would they? The other 2 are just my opinion. If there's no room for them I won't cry about it. It's up to 3Miro to decide. He's the one moding this I'll leave it up to him. Whatever works IMO:)

As time goes on I become less and less ambitious. I am making progress, but I am not at the point where I can code something as Papal state yet. What would the function of it be anyway.

I fixed the settler issue for the Byzantines (it was in the XML). I got Bulgaria to show up (actually Persia, but I call them Bulgarians) properly (both the loading as Human player and AI). The problem right now is that the independents do not load properly. Only Independents1 load, 2 doesn't (there are barbs in their place). I am not sure why that is, in the first test version both indys loaded properly. I'll keep on working.

Initially we should probably just put a lot of civs to see how they will spawn and interact, even to all of them have UP and UHVs. Then add exotic Papal states and such.

No i would like to play as the Papal states, I think it would be fun;)

Last question: Should Al Andalus and Kievan Rus be in one word for the settler maps, AIwars, and consts.py?
AlAndalus and KievanRus

Last question: Should Al Andalus and Kievan Rus be in one word for the settler maps, AIwars, and consts.py?
AlAndalus and KievanRus

I am not sure what do you mean. I need the code, for the settler maps, but I will put it where it belongs. Actually the best you can do is give me just the arrays in a text file. i.e.
#Kievan Rus
(( "-1", "-1", ....),
( "-1", ... "Kiev", ...),
and so on.

The exact place of the maps should be synchronized with Consts.py and Rhye.h since I am the c++/python coder. I will do that, just need the arrays.

BTW, what do the constants in the AIWars mean?

Progress report: now we are in business. I managed to add second civ with all the indeps. Byzantines start normally, Bulgaria waits appropriately. No errors no crashes. Just the settler maps are messed up, Bulgaria does not want to make a new city since it cannot find a good spot, settler maps make huge difference when the AI chooses a new city spot. I will probably give another test version tomorrow.

Civ implementation proposal:

There are many "NEW" civs in RFC Europe. Civilization is described by several text keys (name, adjective and so on) and leaderhead. All of that is in XML and could be edited even by people without major computer skills (except perhaps for the leaderhead graphics). For the time being I propose that each nation in RFC Europe is associated with existing RFC nation. My hope is that is we can get something like a beta, then we can get people exited again and we get help for the graphics.

For right now I propose:
Frankish Empire = (see Kievan Rus)
Bulgaria = Persia
AlAndalus = Egypt
Venetian Republic = Rome
Kievan Rus = (can be made same graphics as Russia, just the name different)
Hungary = Carthage
Poland = (same as Kievan Rus)
Genoa (would it even be different from Venetians, we can just make some generic Italian city states nations, just as Greeks are one nation even though Greek city states spend more time fighting each other than not) =
Austria = America
Sweden (How is that different from the Norse?) =

Can anyone seriously check the starting dates, I am not sure about the Frankish Empire and the Kingdom of Burgundy. Bulgarian and Arabian starting years should be changed, Mohamed started preaching in 622 (according to my research) and the Bulgar tribes were united by Khan Kubrat around 630.

Civ implementation proposal:

There are many "NEW" civs in RFC Europe. Civilization is described by several text keys (name, adjective and so on) and leaderhead. All of that is in XML and could be edited even by people without major computer skills (except perhaps for the leaderhead graphics). For the time being I propose that each nation in RFC Europe is associated with existing RFC nation. My hope is that is we can get something like a beta, then we can get people exited again and we get help for the graphics.

For right now I propose:
Frankish Empire = (see Kievan Rus)
Bulgaria = Persia
AlAndalus = Egypt
Venetian Republic = Rome
Kievan Rus = (can be made same graphics as Russia, just the name different)
Hungary = Carthage
Poland = (same as Kievan Rus)
Genoa (would it even be different from Venetians, we can just make some generic Italian city states nations, just as Greeks are one nation even though Greek city states spend more time fighting each other than not) =
Austria = America
Sweden (How is that different from the Norse?) =

Can anyone seriously check the starting dates, I am not sure about the Frankish Empire and the Kingdom of Burgundy. Bulgarian and Arabian starting years should be changed, Mohamed started preaching in 622 (according to my research) and the Bulgar tribes were united by Khan Kubrat around 630.

Do you mean each of our civs has to correspond to ones in RFC? If so, that's up to you. Whatever is easiest.
As far as graphics go, France and Burgary would be the same. Same with Venice and Genoa. Also with the Norse and Sweden. And with Moscow, Poland and the Kievan Rus. And Germany with Austria. For Al Andalus I would suggest Carthage as we're using its unique unit. For the Bulgarians I would suggest Greece. For Hungary I would suggest Persia as we can use its art too I think.
As far as dates go you suggest 630 instead of 620 for Bulgaria and 620 instead of 630 for Arabia. Though you should bear in mind that we're spawning the Arabs in Damascus (which wasn't actually conquered until 634 I think). Either way is OK. Make it a straight swap if you like. And the problem of Burgundy vs France was debated at length but I recall st. lucifer started them both early for balance. It was a gameplay compromise I guess.:)

Eventually every Civ in RFC Europe would be unique in its own way, however, for the time being I have to use graphics and specifically leaderheads. I can add-remove and really do whatever with the civs right now.

Damascus wasn't conquered until 657, but Bulgarians settled on the Balkans in 680. There were raids for centuries earlier. I will put Bulgaria for 640 and Arabia in 630. We can tweak those later.

Eventually every Civ in RFC Europe would be unique in its own way, however, for the time being I have to use graphics and specifically leaderheads. I can add-remove and really do whatever with the civs right now.

Damascus wasn't conquered until 657, but Bulgarians settled on the Balkans in 680. There were raids for centuries earlier. I will put Bulgaria for 640 and Arabia in 630. We can tweak those later.

OK. But I'm afraid you're mistaken about Damascus. The main article on Damascus in Wikapedia says Sept 18, 634 and the map below says 635. Sorry about that.

AIwars.py is like the settlermap. There is a square of 0's corresponding to the map. The higher the number, the more a certain civ will fight to get control of the tile. You would like put for the Byzantines 10's in their spawn area. 8's in Anatolia and the Balkans. 6's in the territory of the Eastern Roman Empire. And 4's in what Justinian controlled.

I wanted to ask for the settlermaps, is it:
#KievanRus or
#Kievan Rus

AIwars.py is like the settlermap. There is a square of 0's corresponding to the map. The higher the number, the more a certain civ will fight to get control of the tile. You would like put for the Byzantines 10's in their spawn area. 8's in Anatolia and the Balkans. 6's in the territory of the Eastern Roman Empire. And 4's in what Justinian controlled.

I wanted to ask for the settlermaps, is it:
#KievanRus or
#Kievan Rus

Good you figured it, it would be great if you can do the war maps.

In Python # denotes comment, i.e. code that is not executed, but rather for humans to read. It is irrelevant what you write after a #, it only helps me or anyone else that reads your code.

Python has no idea what Kievan Rus is, it only knows civ number 1, civ number 2 and so on. We have to manually tell it which one is which and thus the code must be coordinated. (If you miss the numbering, Kievan Rus might use the Byzantine war map, I am going to do that, all I want is the array from you.)

Burgundy and Bulgaria start early for balance. We might be able to bump Bulgaria back a little bit, but they were around in the Balkans early. There's less historical justification for Burgundy (the Burgundian invasions and the Duchy of Burgundy are connected only by name and geography, and there's a big time gap in between them), but if we have them spawn too late they'll fatally destabilize the French or Germans.

Good you figured it, it would be great if you can do the war maps.

In Python # denotes comment, i.e. code that is not executed, but rather for humans to read. It is irrelevant what you write after a #, it only helps me or anyone else that reads your code.

Python has no idea what Kievan Rus is, it only knows civ number 1, civ number 2 and so on. We have to manually tell it which one is which and thus the code must be coordinated. (If you miss the numbering, Kievan Rus might use the Byzantine war map, I am going to do that, all I want is the array from you.)

I thought ijnavy was doing a settler map for Russia/Kievan Rus. How does that differ from a war map?

And is anyone putting the outstanding settler maps in array? ie Arabs, Bulgars, Ottomans and Byzantines?

Maybe we should finish all the settler maps as well. There's still lots to do.:confused:

I finally finished the hungarian settler map (twice - my comp. rebooted at 90% completion with no save; my eyes are red by now). I named exactly 300 tiles of the map.

I used Úmarth's CityName generator to get the code. I hope it will work fine.
186540

EDIT: You're right, it's city name map :)

I thought ijnavy was doing a settler map for Russia/Kievan Rus. How does that differ from a war map?

And is anyone putting the outstanding settler maps in array? ie Arabs, Bulgars, Ottomans and Byzantines?

Maybe we should finish all the settler maps as well. There's still lots to do.:confused:

We practically have barely started.

There are three types of maps, that we have been misnaming continuously.

settlerMap is an array of numbers that explicitly tell the AI where to place a city. The goal is to make sure the cities the AI places a actual historically important spots (such as Constantinople even on the 3000BC start).

warMap is an array that tells the AI where to attack. It makes the AI declare war and attack certain places (i.e. always try to kick invaders into your core area)

cityNameMap is the one that we have been working on for so long. It basically associates map tiles to actual real city names.

What Andrew has is a city name map, ijnavy was working on some war maps.

We practically have barely started.

There are three types of maps, that we have been misnaming continuously.

settlerMap is an array of numbers that explicitly tell the AI where to place a city. The goal is to make sure the cities the AI places a actual historically important spots (such as Constantinople even on the 3000BC start).

warMap is an array that tells the AI where to attack. It makes the AI declare war and attack certain places (i.e. always try to kick invaders into your core area)

cityNameMap is the one that we have been working on for so long. It basically associates map tiles to actual real city names.

What Andrew has is a city name map, ijnavy was working on some war maps.


Right. So we have been working on cityNameMaps for each civ? Which is what I thought ijnavy promised to do for Russia/Kievan Rus? So who's going to do the remaining city/NameMaps? You and I have completed 4 between us. Who wants to do the rest? I don't mind doing another one but can we get some more volunteers as well?

I finally finished the hungarian settler map (twice - my comp. rebooted at 90% completion with no save; my eyes are red by now). I named exactly 300 tiles of the map.

I used Úmarth's CityName generator to get the code. I hope it will work fine.
186540

EDIT: You're right, it's city name map :)

Great! Can you post to the wiki files please (bottom of page) Thanks!:goodjob:

EDIT: There are now 5 CityName maps in the wiki files waiting to be coded and put into aaray
plus Andrrews Hungary map which is already coded.
I may try to do one for Scandinavia which would serve both the Norse and Sweden
unless anyone has an objection.

OK everyone, here is the next test version of the mod:
http://rapidshare.com/files/139120506/RFCEurope_tst_Aug2108.zip.html

I can actually claim that now I know what I am doing. There is a lot of work still to be done, all the UHVs and UPs have to be coded (after we agree with them), but I can add civs and modify them whichever way I want.

Currently, there are Byzantines (turn 0) and Bulgaria (turn 35). Everything seems to work as intended so far. Without proper settler map, the AI for both civs does not know what do, i.e. they have no clue where to settle and just stay there. (Bulgaria would not settle even with the settler that have) Other than that, everything is supposed to be working.

I will try to do next is add Frankish Empire, Burgundy, Arabs and Al Andalus. Can anyone give the exact spawn coordinates? Also I need approximate core areas. Core area is the same as flip area, but there are huge stability penalties if you do not control your core area. The Byzantine core area should not be outside the Balkans and small part of Asia Minor. I am not sure about the British one either. Does anyone have exact coordinates for all of those areas as they are given in the wiki?

OK everyone, here is the next test version of the mod:
http://rapidshare.com/files/139120506/RFCEurope_tst_Aug2108.zip.html

I can actually claim that now I know what I am doing. There is a lot of work still to be done, all the UHVs and UPs have to be coded (after we agree with them), but I can add civs and modify them whichever way I want.

Currently, there are Byzantines (turn 0) and Bulgaria (turn 35). Everything seems to work as intended so far. Without proper settler map, the AI for both civs does not know what do, i.e. they have no clue where to settle and just stay there. (Bulgaria would not settle even with the settler that have) Other than that, everything is supposed to be working.

I will try to do next is add Frankish Empire, Burgundy, Arabs and Al Andalus. Can anyone give the exact spawn coordinates? Also I need approximate core areas. Core area is the same as flip area, but there are huge stability penalties if you do not control your core area. The Byzantine core area should not be outside the Balkans and small part of Asia Minor. I am not sure about the British one either. Does anyone have exact coordinates for all of those areas as they are given in the wiki?

Spawn points will be on the latest WB map. I'll try to pin down the coordinates from one of the CityName excel maps. Core areas should approximate what you see on the indy map on the wiki, with the Al Andalus spawning at the start point for Cordoba plus a settler and a couple of troops at Fes or Tangier.

If those are in the WB, then the easiest way to get them is to open the WB in text editor (notepad if nothing else) and get the coordinates from the bottom. I will do that myself (if they are in the WB).

If those are in the WB, then the easiest way to get them is to open the WB in text editor (notepad if nothing else) and get the coordinates from the bottom. I will do that myself (if they are in the WB).

Link to latest WB map. Post #568 on this thread.:)

Hello,

If you're still looking for some ideas:

Genoa
Leaders: SIMONE BOCCANEGRA or ANDREA DORIA ??
Favoured Civic: MERCANTILISM
Favored Religion: CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY
Unique Unit: Balestrieri (crossbowmen, perhaps modeled on cho-ko-nus?)
Unique Building: Mint (modeled after Mali's, or perhaps a bank that has a +1 culture?)
Unique Power: Power of Investment (treasury earns 5% interest per turn)
Great People: Ambrogio Spinola, great general, Andrea Doria, great general, Christopher Columbus, great merchant, Galleazzo Allessi, great engineer, Niccolò Paganini, great artist, Sinibaldo Fieschi, great prophet,
Unique Historical Victory:
-Control Corsica, Sardinia, Marseilles, Barcelona & Milan by 1500, hold those AND control Rhodes, Crete, Cyprus and Damietta by 1700
-Be first to reveal the entire map
-No coastal Venetian colonies beyond the Adriatic by 1700.

Hello,

If you're still looking for some ideas:

Genoa
Leaders: SIMONE BOCCANEGRA or ANDREA DORIA ??
Favoured Civic: MERCANTILISM
Favored Religion: CATHOLIC CHRISTIANITY
Unique Unit: Balestrieri (crossbowmen, perhaps modeled on cho-ko-nus?)
Unique Building: Mint (modeled after Mali's, or perhaps a bank that has a +1 culture?)
Unique Power: Power of Investment (treasury earns 5% interest per turn)
Great People: Ambrogio Spinola, great general, Andrea Doria, great general, Christopher Columbus, great merchant, Galleazzo Allessi, great engineer, Niccolò Paganini, great artist, Sinibaldo Fieschi, great prophet,
Unique Historical Victory:
-Control Corsica, Sardinia, Marseilles, Barcelona & Milan by 1500, hold those AND control Rhodes, Crete, Cyprus and Damietta by 1700
-Be first to reveal the entire map
-No coastal Venetian colonies beyond the Adriatic by 1700.

Some good ideas there. I'll add them to the wiki if you like. More great people would be good but bear in mind that the mod ends in 1800 so people like Paganini might appear a bit too late in history for us. However, your contributions are very welcome.:)

If you need anything linked to Sweden(except the settler map, I would most likely get it all messed up), I can try to help you. :)

Cool! Paganini was born in 178?, so he'd need to be a late game booster. I love the colony race between Genoa and Venice, but I have two concerns:
1)Genoa was never much of a political, military or cultural force in the grand scheme of things.
2) Genoa begs to be wiped out early by some of the bigger powers in the area. Would (and I know Lombardy alone has been discussed), a hybrid Lombardy/Liguria civ be worth taking a look at? Historically Milan has some real land muscle and was (and is) a more culturally relevant city than Genoa, at least in Europe, and having that muscle there might encourage Venice to look out to sea, rather than an Italy/Balkan land empire (or, horrors, Germany).

I think the control on this would be at least UHV's that are Genoese based, such as Rhodes, Crete, Cyprus, Damietta (and Corfu, did that make the map?) and a common goal for both Milan and Genoa: capture or vassalize Venice by 1512. The other UHV would be pure Milan based, such as 5 great wonders or unite Italy by 1700.

Cool! Paganini was born in 178?, so he'd need to be a late game booster. I love the colony race between Genoa and Venice, but I have two concerns:
1)Genoa was never much of a political, military or cultural force in the grand scheme of things.
2) Genoa begs to be wiped out early by some of the bigger powers in the area. Would (and I know Lombardy alone has been discussed), a hybrid Lombardy/Liguria civ be worth taking a look at? Historically Milan has some real land muscle and was (and is) a more culturally relevant city than Genoa, at least in Europe, and having that muscle there might encourage Venice to look out to sea, rather than an Italy/Balkan land empire (or, horrors, Germany).

I think the control on this would be at least UHV's that are Genoese based, such as Rhodes, Crete, Cyprus, Damietta (and Corfu, did that make the map?) and a common goal for both Milan and Genoa: capture or vassalize Venice by 1512. The other UHV would be pure Milan based, such as 5 great wonders or unite Italy by 1700.

I tend to agree with you on Genoa being iffy in our mod. But it's hard to choose another playable civ to counter Venice, who will face a land threat from Austria at least. Lombardy maybe or the Kingdom of Naples esp. with the important of controlling territory in BTS? But would any of them last long enough and who would play them except for a quick UHV victory? We should leave them for now and see how they play IMO.:)

UP +5% interest to treasury per turn :lol: :crazyeye: :lol:

I hope you guys realize that this is equivalent to giving Genoa infinite gold. Starting with 100 gold, in mere 50 turns they would be pumping 50 gold per turn out of nothing. We should give them something else (gold/trade related for sure, but not like that).

I am also not sure if should not just make a civ: Italian city states and put Venice and Genoa together.

Venice and Genoa put together would be odd, weren't they big rivals in trading?

Would something like "no stability decrease from far away cities" be good Genovese UP? Without that their proposed UHV would be IMO really tough.

Edit: My suggestions for Sweden:

SWEDEN start: 1500 AD

Leaders: GUSTAV VASA I or CHRISTINA ? or maybe Gustav Adolf II?

Favoured Civic: ORGANIZED RELIGION

Favored Religion: PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY

Unique Unit: Carolean (cheaper musketmen or something like that(actually all soldiers were called caroleans at one time, but they were special, as they lived in normal people's homes) or Hakkapeliitta(cheaper curaissier(they didn't have body armour and they had smaller horses than cavalry usually has)(hakkapeliittas were Finnish cavalry, they became famous when Gustaf Adolf II started using new tactics in battles, and hakkapeliittas and other cavalry were an important part of those tactics)

Unique Building: Soldier Tenant - barracks that give something like -10% hammers on unit costs

Unique Power: Power of Reduktion(reduktion = Gustav Adolf II took back all lands given to nobles as gifts, and that gave king a lot more power and money) - gives Sweden a chunk of money at 1600(I couldn't think of any good UP, but at least this is a different kind of UP!)

Great People: Per Brahe the Younger, great ???(he wasn't a scientist or anything like that, he founded many cities, Finnish post office etc.) - Augustin Ehrensvärd, great engineer - Jakob De la Gardie, great general - Fredrik af Chapman, great engineer(designed new kind of ships for the Swedish navy) - Gustaf Horn, great general - Nils Schillmark, great artist(I couldn't find any better great artists, and I wanted at least one) - Anna Maria Lenngren, great artist(same reason as for Schillmark) - Johannes Schefferus, great scientist - Carl Wilhelm Scheele, great scientist - Carl Fredrik Adelcrantz, great engineer - Johan Banér, great general - Carl Gustaf Wrangel, great general - Anders Celsius, great scientist - Cristopher Polhem, great scientist - Ulrika Pasch, great artist

Unique Historical Victory: 1. Control every tile on coast of Baltic sea by 1720(the Great Northern War, which ended the era of Swedish empire, ended at 1721)
2. Control all Scandinavia by 1720
3. Do not lose any cities to Russia or Poland.

Opinions?

I don't think it would be any odder than putting Greece as one civ. All the Greek city states spend more time fighting with each other than not. There was an alliance against the Persians (alliance between partners not united country), then the alliance brought a civil war, then Philip conquered them. They existed as one under the rule of Philip and Alexander, but fell apart again afterwards.

However, this mod is about nit-picking into European history we could make them separate.

As to the stability of Genoa, we could decrease maintenance cost and/or give stability as in the Resettlement civic.

UP +5% interest to treasury per turn :lol: :crazyeye: :lol:

I hope you guys realize that this is equivalent to giving Genoa infinite gold. Starting with 100 gold, in mere 50 turns they would be pumping 50 gold per turn out of nothing. We should give them something else (gold/trade related for sure, but not like that).

I am also not sure if should not just make a civ: Italian city states and put Venice and Genoa together.

Agreed on the UP there - even 1% would get out of hand under the control of the human player.

I do think we should have separate Italian civs - both Venice and Genoa were powers during the late Medieval period and Renaissance, and were bitter rivals for most of that time period. Keep in mind, also, that both city-states controlled extensive holdings throughout Europe during this period - Venice held most of the Mediterranean islands and Dalmatia; Genoa held the Crimea and parts of Lebanon. Genoa's navies were so dominant in the Mediterranean that England ended up borrowing St. George's cross for their own flag to reduce the risk of piracy.
Ideally, they'll have more trade and colonization-oriented UHVs which put them into direct conflict with each other; both will struggle with small population and resources, but will have rich land available in Italy and the Mediterranean islands if they manage enough of a military buildup to take it. Think of both Venice and Genoa as being sort of like the Dutch in RFC - unlikely to be a major military power, but a top contender for tech, money, and cultural goals.

I'd favor the UPs for both civs as being commercial or naval.

Venice and Genoa put together would be odd, weren't they big rivals in trading?

Would something like "no stability decrease from far away cities" be good Genovese UP? Without that their proposed UHV would be IMO really tough.

Edit: My suggestions for Sweden:

SWEDEN start: 1500 AD

Leaders: GUSTAV VASA I or CHRISTINA ? or maybe Gustav Adolf II?

Favoured Civic: ORGANIZED RELIGION

Favored Religion: PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY

Unique Unit: Carolean (cheaper musketmen or something like that(actually all soldiers were called caroleans at one time, but they were special, as they lived in normal people's homes) or Hakkapeliitta(cheaper curaissier(they didn't have body armour and they had smaller horses than cavalry usually has)(hakkapeliittas were Finnish cavalry, they became famous when Gustaf Adolf II started using new tactics in battles, and hakkapeliittas and other cavalry were an important part of those tactics)

Unique Building: Soldier Tenant - barracks that give something like -10% hammers on unit costs

Unique Power: Power of Reduktion(reduktion = Gustav Adolf II took back all lands given to nobles as gifts, and that gave king a lot more power and money) - gives Sweden a chunk of money at 1600(I couldn't think of any good UP, but at least this is a different kind of UP!)

Great People: Per Brahe the Younger, great ???(he wasn't a scientist or anything like that, he founded many cities, Finnish post office etc.) - Augustin Ehrensvärd, great engineer - Jakob De la Gardie, great general - Fredrik af Chapman, great engineer(designed new kind of ships for the Swedish navy) - Gustaf Horn, great general - Nils Schillmark, great artist(I couldn't find any better great artists, and I wanted at least one) - Anna Maria Lenngren, great artist(same reason as for Schillmark) - Johannes Schefferus, great scientist - Carl Wilhelm Scheele, great scientist - Carl Fredrik Adelcrantz, great engineer

Unique Historical Victory: 1. Control every tile on coast of Baltic sea by 1720(the Great Northern War, which ended the era of Swedish empire, ended at 1721)
2. Control all Scandinavia by 1720
3. Do not lose any cities to Russia or Poland.

Opinions?

I like many of your ideas about Sweden. I'll put them in the wiki if it's OK.

Funny that many that some of your suggestions seem very "Finnish". Not a bit biased are we? I thought Finland was just a colony of Sweden until very recently. Am I wrong? (Any implication of racism is of course unintentional)
BTW Can you do a CityName map for Scandinavia? You're obviously a lot more qualified than I am!:)

I think all civ's that start at the begging of the game should be set to be Catholics and then when Church splits let Lutherism spread

I like many of your ideas about Sweden. I'll put them in the wiki if it's OK.

Funny that many that some of your suggestions seem very "Finnish". Not a bit biased are we? I thought Finland was just a colony of Sweden until very recently. Am I wrong? (Any implication of racism is of course unintentional)
BTW Can you do a CityName map for Scandinavia? You're obviously a lot more qualified than I am!:)

Yeah, you can put them on the wiki.

I don't think I'm that much biased. The problem is, that the period when Sweden was a great power was relatively short, so they didn't have many great people, unique kind of soldiers etc. . Swedish cavalry and it's tactics were strong at that time, but Swedish Cavalry wouldn't be a good name for an UU, so I used Hakkapeliitta, it at least sounds better. I don't know many great people from Sweden, so I used Finnish, English and Swedish Wikipedia to find some(I just found a "List of Swedes" article from Wiki, very useful, going to edit my suggestions for Swedish great people). Those may be the reasons why some of my suggestions are Finland-related.

I can try to make a CityName map for Scandinavia, IF you tell me how, haven't done it before.

And Finland was and wasn't a colony. It wasn't a colony like for example America for the British, but Finland didn't have the same reputation than other regions in Sweden.

I think all civ's that start at the begging of the game should be set to be Catholics and then when Church splits let Lutherism spread

You're not including the Byzantines are you?:lol:

Yeah, you can put them on the wiki.

I don't think I'm that much biased. The problem is, that the period when Sweden was a great power was relatively short, so they didn't have many great people, unique kind of soldiers etc. . Swedish cavalry and it's tactics were strong at that time, but Swedish Cavalry wouldn't be a good name for an UU, so I used Hakkapeliitta, it at least sounds better. I don't know many great people from Sweden, so I used Finnish, English and Swedish Wikipedia to find some(I just found a "List of Swedes" article from Wiki, very useful, going to edit my suggestions for Swedish great people). Those may be the reasons why some of my suggestions are Finland-related.

I can try to make a CityName map for Scandinavia, IF you tell me how, haven't done it before.

And Finland was and wasn't a colony. It wasn't a colony like for example America for the British, but Finland didn't have the same reputation than other regions in Sweden.

I was only kidding. My knowledge of Scandinavian history is pretty small. I don't mind doing the CityName map myself but I'm a bit worried about missing up some of the names. Would it be OK to use the names from a 19th.C Scandinavia map that I've downloaded? It's in Swedish or Danish I think. Or have placenames changed a lot over hundreds of years? Anyway, thanks for your help so far. Any additional info you've got on the Norse and Sweden would be most welcome.:)

I don't think that the names have changed, at least I don't know any important name changes. Luckily many Swedish, Norwegian and Danish cities are really old, so I think you can use most of the names in the map.

If you need help with the Norse or Sweden, I can help you. I'll also try to come up with for example some UHVs for other nations if you want. I don't know how to write Python or XML, but I can give you ideas if you want.

You're not including the Byzantines are you?:lol:

Of course not:), countries that were orginally Orthodox should stay orthodox unless they converted later, and when the year Calvinism and Lutherism start spreading it should spread quickly over places where they were Lutherin

Of course not:), countries that were orginally Orthodox should stay orthodox unless they converted later, and when the year Calvinism and Lutherism start spreading it should spread quickly over places where they were Lutherin

I agree with you. I think the rise of Protestantism will be treated as an event which enables certain civs to adopt it as a civic esp where it is their favoured religion. Some civs like Hungary will also be able to adopt Free Religion where their Unique Power requires it.:)

Frankia, Burgundy and Arabia added without UP and UHV of course.

Frankia, Burgundy and Arabia added without UP and UHV of course.

Good. What about the CityNames map for each civ? I've just finished the Scandinavian CityNames map (for the Norse and Sweden) which I'll post in the wiki. with the others waiting for coding. It covers all of Scandinavia and the Baltic coast and Britain and Ireland as well in case they should settle there.:)

I will not have access to a computer the next two weeks. When I'm back, the settlermaps (everything that has been completed so far, Kievan Rus and Moscow), and barbarians.py will be finished.

Here is the next test version of RFC Europe
http://rapidshare.com/files/140383705/RFCEurope_tst_Aug2608.zip.html

Now we have Arabia, Bulgaria, Byzantines, Burgundy, Frank Empire, Cordoba, Spain and the Norse.

We need a tech three + Units if we are to start any UHVs and UPs.

Here is the next test version of RFC Europe
http://rapidshare.com/files/140383705/RFCEurope_tst_Aug2608.zip.html

Now we have Arabia, Bulgaria, Byzantines, Burgundy, Frank Empire, Cordoba, Spain and the Norse.

We need a tech three + Units if we are to start any UHVs and UPs.

Still working on revising the tech tree I posted earlier. I take it we're using the generic starting units for now are we? Do you need to code the settler maps first? If so, somebody needs to do the German one next.:)

EDIT Just loaded the test version. Started playing as Cordoba but the cities you build automatically
have Persian names. Can we fix it so you can edit the city name to whatever you want?

Names should be Arabic not Persian. In either case, the names would be taken from the city name maps whenever we have those. I was looking yesterday on how to convert the excel files to python code, but it was not that easy. It would take me some time.

I don't know if there is an option to name a city to whatever in RFC and at the end we would not need it for RFC Europe either. We still need to see how we are going to do the AI settler maps, those that tell the AI where to put cities.

Names should be Arabic not Persian. In either case, the names would be taken from the city name maps whenever we have those. I was looking yesterday on how to convert the excel files to python code, but it was not that easy. It would take me some time.

I don't know if there is an option to name a city to whatever in RFC and at the end we would not need it for RFC Europe either. We still need to see how we are going to do the AI settler maps, those that tell the AI where to put cities.

Just an update. I've played to 1200AD and have 8 cities in Al Andalus. And I started with Khurasan and Anjar so I guess they are Arabic. But the AI isn't building any beyond their start city except for the Bulgarians who have built a 2nd one in the Carpathians after building Preslav. There seems to be no incentive for anyone to expand. Everybody's going for wonders instead. The Byzantines have built three and even the Bulgarians have the Great Wall. And the Burgundians have collapsed due to instability after being at war with France and Spain from the very start. Everything else seems normal even with events like the "goldrush" and iron appearing on the map when Iron Working is researched, though no huts or barbarians. Only animals so far.:)

BTW By excel files, do you mean the "array" in the wiki? Those 4 were converted by Umarth and there is one more in the files for Hungary. The rest are awaiting conversion to "array" aren't they?
We are slowly getting there on settler maps (CityName maps?) with only the Germans, Austrians and Dutch to go, presuming ijnavy comes up with the Moscow/Kievan Rus one he's promised.

In RFC only barb animals appear at random, all other barb appearances are scripted. We need to decide when and whee barbs would appear and then script them.

The AI does not build cities because it cannot find a "good" spot. In regular civ, the AI builds cities based upon distance from the capital and available resources. In RFC, the AI has preferences that are coded in the settler map (look at the list of the different types of maps a few posts ago). Greeks always have incentive to build Constantinople and Egypt doe snot have much incentive to build outside the Nile delta, England has incentive to build cities all over the world and so on. Right now everyone is using the RFC Egypt map which does not really correspond to anything in Europe. Hence noone is expanding. Further more everyone has an extra penalty on stability because all of their cities are assumed to be on "bad" spots.

So everything works as it is supposed to :)

In RFC only barb animals appear at random, all other barb appearances are scripted. We need to decide when and whee barbs would appear and then script them.

The AI does not build cities because it cannot find a "good" spot. In regular civ, the AI builds cities based upon distance from the capital and available resources. In RFC, the AI has preferences that are coded in the settler map (look at the list of the different types of maps a few posts ago). Greeks always have incentive to build Constantinople and Egypt doe snot have much incentive to build outside the Nile delta, England has incentive to build cities all over the world and so on. Right now everyone is using the RFC Egypt map which does not really correspond to anything in Europe. Hence noone is expanding. Further more everyone has an extra penalty on stability because all of their cities are assumed to be on "bad" spots.

So everything works as it is supposed to :)

Thanks. How about the BTW I've just added?:)

If Umarth has the arrays, where did he post them. I could use those in the current code.

All of those are city name maps, and would not fix the settler issue. I could suppose and make a settler map out of those (i.e. put high preference on the tiles that correspond to large cities), but I have to see how this would work.

If Umarth has the arrays, where did he post them. I could use those in the current code.

All of those are city name maps, and would not fix the settler issue. I could suppose and make a settler map out of those (i.e. put high preference on the tiles that correspond to large cities), but I have to see how this would work.

As I said the 4 are in the arrays section on the wiki page and the Hungary map is already converted to array and is in the wiki files where we posted our maps along with the maps which are not yet put in array.

I could do a settler map based on the existing excel maps pretty quickly if you want, as I do have the time right now. Is it OK on the latest WB map or should it be on excel?:)

Hey guys,

I haven't been following this development too closely, but it's great to see a test version of this that loads and plays and everything. It really inspires me to get involved. Is there somewhere a list of things that a volunteer could contribute? If not, I think it would be useful to have such a thing so that people who want to help don't have to wade through several different (long) forum posts.

It's unclear if people have started on (real) settler maps, as opposed to city name maps. I could start doing some (I'd start with Byzantium).

Oops, that's what I get for starting a post and finishing it later. Didn't mean to ignore your post jessiecat. The Excel file on the wiki is an older (3.0.1) map than the (current?) one (3.0.3) in the WBS. I assume it's better to use the new version.

Hey guys,

I haven't been following this development too closely, but it's great to see a test version of this that loads and plays and everything. It really inspires me to get involved. Is there somewhere a list of things that a volunteer could contribute? If not, I think it would be useful to have such a thing so that people who want to help don't have to wade through several different (long) forum posts.

It's unclear if people have started on (real) settler maps, as opposed to city name maps. I could start doing some (I'd start with Byzantium).

Thanks for your interest. The more help we get the better. As far as settler maps I think it's supposed to be one big map so the AI knows to place cities so I'd hold off on that until 3Miro decides what he needs for the code.

As far as CityNamemaps we need one covering Germany and Austria using the excel format (blank excel map available from our wiki). If you wanted to have a try at that it would be a great help. Otherwise, please join the wiki and see what suggestions you can add to the civ lists.:)

Oops, that's what I get for starting a post and finishing it later. Didn't mean to ignore your post jessiecat. The Excel file on the wiki is an older (3.0.1) map than the (current?) one (3.0.3) in the WBS. I assume it's better to use the new version.

Sorry. We seem to be crossposting. The excel map can be downloaded from the RFC Europe Wiki.
And it is 3.01 but the changes aren't too significant. Besides it can be altered later. Just add notes to each square and save your final map here or the map thread on this forum.:)

Yeah, I'll take a look at doing a city names map. Looking at the code, I think the settler maps are pretty straightforward though. It's one big array 3-dimensional for all the civs, but each individual civ has a 2-dim array the size of the map with values 3,20,40,60,90,150,200,300,400,500,700, in increasing order of "desire" for each square. Right?

Yeah, I'll take a look at doing a city names map. Looking at the code, I think the settler maps are pretty straightforward though. It's one big array 3-dimensional for all the civs, but each individual civ has a 2-dim array the size of the map with values 3,20,40,60,90,150,200,300,400,500,700, in increasing order of "desire" for each square. Right?

Could be. I really don't know about code. My thing is mostly history and geography. Guys like 3 Miro and others are modders. They'll know what you're saying I guess.:confused:

Leave the CityNamemaps to me. You guys can deal with the settler maps and war maps. OK?:)

From looking at CvRhyes.cpp I've attempted to produce a Settler map for Byzantium in the appropriate format and posted it to the wiki. Essentially I just used the Excel spreadsheet, put in numbers ranging from 0 to 9 corresponding to the various levels of desirability, and then post-processed that file with a python script. Blank entries are treated as the "default" value of 20. Note that there's one lower value (my 0 -> Rhye's 3) which tells the AI never to settle there.

So, what I'm saying is that it's easy to change the format if there's a problem with it. I believe that these settler maps should be 73 by 100, 'cause that's the size of our map. Currently CvRhyes.cpp has larger arrays, unless there's a good/complicated reason for this?

I'm posting a picture where I also color-coded the squares so people can see/debate this map. Both Settler and War maps require historical knowledge too, and are open to modification. I've put in some positive values for pretty much everywhere Byzantium ever controlled, with major cities/long-held areas weighted more.

Unfortunately I don't have an easy way to compile/test this mod myself... but perhaps this will prove useful for 3Miro and other testers.

Okay, a little more information on settler maps, posted here partly for my own reference:

3 = Do not settle here, often used to mark off neighboring civs' spawn areas for roughly concurrent civs.
20 = default values, typically covering oceans and mountains as well as most of the map
40,60 = slightly more favored areas
90 = No influence on stability? Hence, all lower value squares hurt your stability if you own them.
150,200,300,400,500,700 = All seem to have same influence on stability. Generally core areas are at 500, with major cities at 700 and full empire extent at 400.

From looking at CvRhyes.cpp I've attempted to produce a Settler map for Byzantium in the appropriate format and posted it to the wiki. Essentially I just used the Excel spreadsheet, put in numbers ranging from 0 to 9 corresponding to the various levels of desirability, and then post-processed that file with a python script. Blank entries are treated as the "default" value of 20. Note that there's one lower value (my 0 -> Rhye's 3) which tells the AI never to settle there.

So, what I'm saying is that it's easy to change the format if there's a problem with it. I believe that these settler maps should be 73 by 100, 'cause that's the size of our map. Currently CvRhyes.cpp has larger arrays, unless there's a good/complicated reason for this?

I'm posting a picture where I also color-coded the squares so people can see/debate this map. Both Settler and War maps require historical knowledge too, and are open to modification. I've put in some positive values for pretty much everywhere Byzantium ever controlled, with major cities/long-held areas weighted more.

Unfortunately I don't have an easy way to compile/test this mod myself... but perhaps this will prove useful for 3Miro and other testers.

Even as a non-modder I understand this map which gives preference to tiles that a Byzantine AI or humanplayer might be encouraged to settle. But one question though. You have put a +5 value on squares in southern Iberia even though the Byzantines never settled there by 500AD. Iberia and southern Gaul was part of a Visigothic Christian kingdom at that time. Why would the Byzantines want to settle there at all? And what effect would those +5 values have on the Al Andalus spawn area in 700AD?:confused:

The Byzantines held southern Iberia under Justinian I, correct? Source (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/bizans.htm). They won't (presumbly) start with anything there, and they probably won't expand there under the AI (too far away), but they won't be penalized stability-wise if they do. Rhye's settler maps normally cover most of the greatest extent of an empire.

Those values in Spain shouldn't affect anyone else's stability etc. on spawning there.

The Byzantines held southern Iberia under Justinian I, correct? Source (http://www.allaboutturkey.com/bizans.htm). They won't (presumbly) start with anything there, and they probably won't expand there under the AI (too far away), but they won't be penalized stability-wise if they do. Rhye's settler maps normally cover most of the greatest extent of an empire.

Those values in Spain shouldn't affect anyone else's stability etc. on spawning there.

I admit they held some territory there before 600AD though I don't think they had much impact and were replaced by the Visigoths anyway. In the first few moves in our game nothing much will happen there until Al Andalus spawns in 700AD.:)

sedna17 :goodjob: I am so happy there is someone else that can understand the code and help me. If you could make the settler map that would be huge.

The size of the settler map array is exactly as you describe it, if you could post the arrays for the separate civs in different text files I will put them into the Rhyes.cpp. For now I guess I am the code coordinator and I will be working directly on the code, but your help is greatly appreciated.

A quick thought, on the Byzantine map, look at the territory north of the Balkan mountain, that is the Bulgarian spawn area. The values there might be lower or set to 3 (around Preslav).

Another thing that you could help with (or anyone that is interested) is determining the exact spawn areas. In Python Consts.py, there are arrays describing the spawn (core) area, normal area (which is like the normal area of expansion) and broader area (maximum area). Right now those are just small areas around each capital since I needed to do research to make it historically accurate. (note everything in the core area flips on spawn, keep that in mind)

I am progressively getting very busy, but I will try to work as much as possible.

sedna17 :goodjob: I am so happy there is someone else that can understand the code and help me. If you could make the settler map that would be huge.

The size of the settler map array is exactly as you describe it, if you could post the arrays for the separate civs in different text files I will put them into the Rhyes.cpp. For now I guess I am the code coordinator and I will be working directly on the code, but your help is greatly appreciated.

A quick thought, on the Byzantine map, look at the territory north of the Balkan mountain, that is the Bulgarian spawn area. The values there might be lower or set to 3 (around Preslav).

Another thing that you could help with (or anyone that is interested) is determining the exact spawn areas. In Python Consts.py, there are arrays describing the spawn (core) area, normal area (which is like the normal area of expansion) and broader area (maximum area). Right now those are just small areas around each capital since I needed to do research to make it historically accurate. (note everything in the core area flips on spawn, keep that in mind)

I am progressively getting very busy, but I will try to work as much as possible.

Great you're getting help with the code. I'll keep busy with other stuff esp. the tech tree. How are you getting on putting the CityName maps into array? I expect you've noticed the 4 arrays already done and the one for Hungary in the wiki files. Also, will you need the German CityName map soon?:)

BTW You'll find the proposed spawn areas on the map displayed on the wiki page though you may
wish to alter it somewhat.

I can see the spawn areas, but those are not in terms of coordinates, they are just drawn over a bitmap. It would require work to be translated into coordinates and placed into the code.

I can see the spawn areas, but those are not in terms of coordinates, they are just drawn over a bitmap. It would require work to be translated into coordinates and placed into the code.

OK. What do you want from me next? More work on the tech tree or more CityName maps?:)

3Miro: Right on about Bulgaria. We may want to set that area in the Byzantium war map (to simulate the Bulgaria/Byzantium wars) but maybe not be so strong in the Settler map.

I'll try to get to some more Settler maps soon. As for the core/normal/broader maps, the current regions drawn on the wiki are nice but... tedious. Specifically, it is easy to specify rectangles, and more prone to errors if we have lots of little fiddly bits. Rhye, in his infinite wisdom, mostly does things which are pretty close to rectangles. If someone wants to code up these fiddly bits, perhaps using the spreadsheet to get coordinates, here's what you need to know:

For each civ, we need coordinates for:

Core (Spawn Areas):
BottomLeft
TopRight
Exceptions, a list of coordinates which are ADDED onto the rectangle, format
((x1,y1),(x2,y2),...)

Normal ("Stable" Area), typically bigger than core areas:
BottomLeft
TopRight
Subtracted, a list of coordinates which are SUBTRACTED from the rectangle, same format as above.

Broader (Not sure what this does, a bit bigger than Normal areas):
BottomLeft
TopRight

It's okay if these regions overlap with other civs, but obviously the spawn areas shouldn't overlap too much in most cases.

I agree with the general philosophy of getting some of this mod working, so if people want to start on some of the early Civs first that would be great.

city name maps are just a flavor to the game, the tech three is the substance.

We cannot work on UHV and UP until we are clear on the tech three and where the UU and UB and the civics and everything else stands.

city name maps are just a flavor to the game, the tech three is the substance.

We cannot work on UHV and UP until we are clear on the tech three and where the UU and UB and the civics and everything else stands.

OK. I'm reworking the tech tree I posted earlier. Should be ready tomorrow.:)

Right. I've finished the latest version of my proposed tech tree on the Tech Tree
Discussion thread. Opininions and suggestions are very welcome.:)

Okay, so I've got a good system for generating settler maps now. Each one requires a little research on my part to make it at least passably accurate. I decided to post them on the individual Civs' pages, as that keeps things well organized. I include a low-quality snap-shot of each settler map in order to solicit feedback.

Franks (http://wikirhye.wikidot.com/rfce-france)

One important question (though easily fixed) concerns the orientation of arrays. Looking at the placeholder "Egypt" arrays, it seems as if the orientation of these arrays is "as you would see it". That is, the 0,0 position of the array is top left, and the xmax,ymax is bottom right. I know, though, that the WBS file format starts with y = 0 in the BOTTOM left. Can anyone else confirm which way these arrays are set up? I note that the name-maps are "flipped" so that y = 0 in the bottom, but perhaps these arrays are treated differently?

sedna17, good observation. In fact whenever settler maps are being calles (also war maps and city name maps) the map in inverted in the y direction. i.e. city' name in (x,y) = city name map ( x, mapMaxY - y -1 ). Since it would be hard to change the code in all the references to settler maps, we should use Rhye's convention (i.e. make the arrays as we see them).

EDIT: Should the Frank map incorporate more fo the territory of Charlemagne? I have not done the research so you might be right, but it just looks as the Franks = France and little else.

sedna17, good observation. In fact whenever settler maps are being calles (also war maps and city name maps) the map in inverted in the y direction. i.e. city' name in (x,y) = city name map ( x, mapMaxY - y -1 ). Since it would be hard to change the code in all the references to settler maps, we should use Rhye's convention (i.e. make the arrays as we see them).

EDIT: Should the Frank map incorporate more fo the territory of Charlemagne? I have not done the research so you might be right, but it just looks as the Franks = France and little else.

Well, we were doing the Franks as a sort of proto-France. We've got Burgundy spawning shortly thereafter in what would have been Lotharingia, and the Germans spawning not too long after that in what would be East Francia. Given how large the Frankish territories were, we run into the same problem as the Byzantines - if we represent them historically, they're a superpower that's likely to either dominate completely or collapse as civ after civ spawns in their territory. I think the current approach is pretty good.

I will suggest that we tweak the settler map a little to give the French some interest in English territory. If there are other ways of promoting conflicts between the two, that's great, but they're going to need some competition to prevent turtling and buildup.

I welcome all the attention that people have given to coding, and about time too I think. And I appreciate the fact that 3Miro and now others are moving forward in a positive way. At 3Miro's suggestion, I've recently posted a new proposal for the tech tree which I thnk is more developed than what has gone before. While it has recorded 16 views to date, I have received no comments or suggestions about it so far.
I'm about to flesh this out further with links between techs, buildings and units, as well as civics. And I will update this process over the weeks to come. It would be helpful to get some feedback from my work so far and suggestions as how I might improve the finished product. I would be disappointed if my efforts in this were regarded as irrelevant or unwanted.:)

Thanks for the feedback and quick response. I've extended the settler map into England and Corsica, both places the "French" could be, later in the timeframe covered by the mod. I did originally think about extending them through Germany and the low countries, but thought much as St. Lucifer that that would cause manifest stability problems.

Oh, and I fixed a bug in my conversion script which caused v1 of the Franks Settler map to be broken. How embarrassing. A new version, on the wiki, is hopefully formatted a-ok.

We will give additional impetus to France and England to fight with the AIwars.py maps. I believe someone else is currently working on those. For my part, I'm interested in getting the stuff that goes into C code working, since we're currently totally dependent on 3Miro for that, but once we have a lot of the stuff in the dll it is much easier for others to work on the python.

I welcome all the attention that people have given to coding, and about time too I think. And I appreciate the fact that 3Miro and now others are moving forward in a positive way. At 3Miro's suggestion, I've recently posted a new proposal for the tech tree which I thnk is more developed than what has gone before. While it has recorded 16 views to date, I have received no comments or suggestions about it so far.
I'm about to flesh this out further with links between techs, buildings and units, as well as civics. And I will update this process over the weeks to come. It would be helpful to get some feedback from my work so far and suggestions as how I might improve the finished product. I would be disappointed if my efforts in this were regarded as irrelevant or unwanted.:)

I'm looking at it. Map issues take less time and thought for me to process - I figured you'd want it to get the full treatment.

Right. I've finished the latest version of my proposed tech tree on the Tech Tree
Discussion thread. Opininions and suggestions are very welcome.:)

Uhm..Could you tell me where exactly the tech tree is? I can't find it.

Right. I've finished the latest version of my proposed tech tree on the Tech Tree
Discussion thread. Opininions and suggestions are very welcome.:)

As I said before.:)

Thanks, I was searching it on wiki.

Thanks for the feedback and quick response. I've extended the settler map into England and Corsica, both places the "French" could be, later in the timeframe covered by the mod. I did originally think about extending them through Germany and the low countries, but thought much as St. Lucifer that that would cause manifest stability problems.

Oh, and I fixed a bug in my conversion script which caused v1 of the Franks Settler map to be broken. How embarrassing. A new version, on the wiki, is hopefully formatted a-ok.

We will give additional impetus to France and England to fight with the AIwars.py maps. I believe someone else is currently working on those. For my part, I'm interested in getting the stuff that goes into C code working, since we're currently totally dependent on 3Miro for that, but once we have a lot of the stuff in the dll it is much easier for others to work on the python.

Just a question about the Settler maps on the wiki. The Al Andalus one looks OK to me though I think it should extend further to the NW to at least the Pyrenees to include Zaragoza and Barcino and further SW in Morocco to the bottom of the map.
Also, if they spawn at Cordoba and Tangier would all the independent cities in the red settler area flip to them? That would give them Cordoba, Seville, Granada, Valencia, Toledo, Tangier, Fez, Meknes and Tlemcen. Pretty nice start for the human player but a bit too powerful for the AI isn't it?:D

To Jessiecat, Flip area is independent from the settler map. The area that flips is the "Core Area" and it is in another file.

sedna17, great job on the settler maps. The ones that are currently on the wiki are being incorporated into the code.

On Arabia, I don't think they should spread all the way to Spain. The Arabic world was split in two, East (Arabia) and West (Cordoba). The border should be somewhere in the middle (between Cartage and Egypt).

sedna17, great job on the settler maps. The ones that are currently on the wiki are being incorporated into the code.

On Arabia, I don't think they should spread all the way to Spain. The Arabic world was split in two, East (Arabia) and West (Cordoba). The border should be somewhere in the middle (between Cartage and Egypt).

Agreed. We made that division on purpose - give them both claims on Tunisia, and leave it at that.


If anyone reading this thread has opinions on the proposed civic lists (tech tree thread), I'd love to hear them.

Agreed. We made that division on purpose - give them both claims on Tunisia, and leave it at that.


If anyone reading this thread has opinions on the proposed civic lists (tech tree thread), I'd love to hear them.

Agreed. So both the Arab and Cordoba settler maps should both include Tunisia, I guess?
And Cordoba's should include SW Morocco and NE Spain, as I suggested, Right?:)

I hope to finish the next test version today or tomorrow. This one should include all the civs. Then I will start looking on how to code the tech three and respectively look at it in more details.

Thanks for the feedback on the Settler maps. I'm not ignoring you, but I am going to push ahead and finish a version 1 for every Civ before going back and tweaking anymore. That will hopefully allow 3Miro's next test version to actually play a bit more interestingly. I will try to finish these tonight.

OK everyone, the next test version is ready. The current settler maps are installed and the AI has at least some hint of an idea what to do. I will install the other maps as soon as sedna17 has them ready and posted.

The current test version has all the civs, except for the Papal State. PS should be in the game, however, it may not be playable (maybe something like the Charlemagne mod). If playable it should be an OCC type of game. Until we are clear on the details of it, I will leave it out.

We have a problem with the settler maps. All of the arrays posted on the wiki are flipped and contain special characters. For some reason in my case, Python does not recognize the special characters, can anyone confirm/deny if there are any such characters in RFC. I can flip the arrays (whenever I find time), but I don't know what to do about the characters. I am not sure if the Hungarian array is correct or not. Can whomever did it (andrew??) check to see if the Hungarian cities show up with correct names.

I suppose sedna17 is doing the settler maps on Excel and then converts them with a macro. Of all the programming languages I have learned over the years, I never figured Excel macros, so I guess sedna17 can help with those (after the settler maps, the war maps and possibly after the tech three, city names is really low priority at this point).

Any Comments, Observations, Suggestions or stuff that I got wrong?

http://rapidshare.com/files/142448493/RFCEurope_tst_Sep03.zip.html

Okay, a version of all the settler maps are up on the wiki (except Papal States, since I similarly wasn't sure what to do with them). I played a very quick test game, and it was gratifying to see Burgundy settle in the right places (well, the places I told them to, anyway). Nifty.

More tomorrow...

Agreed. So both the Arab and Cordoba settler maps should both include Tunisia, I guess?
And Cordoba's should include SW Morocco and NE Spain, as I suggested, Right?:)

Yeah. Any objections, anyone? Arguably, we could extend Cordoba's map into Provence/Toulouse, but that might cause the AI to overextend itself. The Baleares, Sicily, Malta, and Sardinia should also probably have a positive (if low) value placed on them.


Thanks for the feedback on the Settler maps. I'm not ignoring you, but I am going to push ahead and finish a version 1 for every Civ before going back and tweaking anymore. That will hopefully allow 3Miro's next test version to actually play a bit more interestingly. I will try to finish these tonight.

Thanks for your work on this. I'm impressed that you've been able to get so much done in such a short time.

Okay, a version of all the settler maps are up on the wiki (except Papal States, since I similarly wasn't sure what to do with them). I played a very quick test game, and it was gratifying to see Burgundy settle in the right places (well, the places I told them to, anyway). Nifty.

More tomorrow...

I've just been playing a game on the latest test version (sept.03) and the AI seems to settle fine. Though I guess we won't get proper names until the CItyName maps are included. Right?:)

EDIT

Just an update on test games. Have played as Cordoba, the Arabs and Burgundy. In each case the
game crashed to desktop in respectively, 1340, 1460 and 1520. Although returning to the last auto
save will allow me to play on further.
Also the AI does not want to settle. In all 3 games nobody founded a 2nd. city except for the Bulgarians who always settle 3 tiles NW in the Carpathians for their second city. In my last game as Burgundy I saw the Cordobans build a settler then turtle him in Cordoba despite my having just eliminated the Spanish so they had all of Iberia to themselves. Doesn't figure.:confused:

Stability is also a big issue for all players. Burgundy always seems to collapse to Barbarian after an early war with the Franks. And in every game I couldn't upgrade from H.R., Slavery and Org. Religion without starting to collapse. There seems to be a big stability drop after building the 3rd. city. Though the AI civs get unstable with only one. Hopefully some of these issues will be addressed once we put more civs in and the coding progresses further.

Accents in city names in RFC are encoded in ASCII codes such as might be used in html. Although the city-names are functionally a low priority (the game plays fine without them), a lot of individual people contributed to their production, so it would be good public relations to get them in soon :) I'll figure out how to fix these guys up.

As a matter of code coordination, here's where I stand:


Fixing city-name maps
Producing an XML file for our new Civics
Revising settler maps


I have not started the AIwars.py maps, although as the system is similar to settler maps it would be easy for me to produce them given sufficient time. I believe ijnavy expressed some interest in doing those (along with Barbarians.py), and he will be back soon, so I will refrain from starting these for a while until we hear back from him.

I mention all this since I will be traveling next week (to Germany, yay), and apart from hopefully doing some on-the-ground research into German castles I will otherwise not be contributing from Sept 7th - 13th. Hopefully by spelling out explicitly what I am working on we can avoid duplication of effort or any unnecessary waiting on me for something I haven't actually worked on yet.

Okay, I'm sorry to post a still-buggy piece, but I thought it might be helpful to have this before I left. I converted all the current name lists (except Poland, which is in WBS format and just would take more time to convert) into the format appropriate for CityNameManager.py. This included flipping some of the maps and converting the accents (although accents were only present in the Spain/France maps). I've uploaded CityNameManager.py to the front (Europe) page of the wiki. I included comments on what was updated and what wasn't, and which civs share the same arrays (currently Spain/Portugal, Venice/Genoa, Franks/Burgundy, Norse/Sweeden, Arabs/Cordoba).

I tried a test game, and things seemed to work okay (though I'll have to adjust the settler maps to get people to settle major cities named the correct thing). The Venice/Genoa maps are rather incomplete. For some odd reason, the Byzantine map isn't working. Could be formatting problems, could be special Byzantine code from their odd position in the 600 AD start? I didn't have time to track down the error yet.

I think we still need:
Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Kiev, Moscow at least.

Anyhow, enjoy.

Sorry. The City Manager thing you posted isn't on the 1st. pageof the wiki. It's only in the files as a Java save that opens to a long list of code. Has it been loaded on to the test game? I've only got the Sept. 3 version with the 8 civs.:confused:
BTW Any thoughts on the crashing and failure to settle bugs I reported in my last post?

For the last week and so I have been busy with a paper that I had to submit, the little time I had for RFCE was spend in futility perusing a bug (might be related to jessiecat's).

I cannot "clean" the the old tech three, if I remove all the techs and all the units and remove all the entries from Rhyes.h and consts.py, and all the following references that I could find, the game crashes on turn 14 (when I hit enter). There is a problem somewhere in the code, that references something from the tech tree and I have been unable to find it so far. Will keep on working.

For the last week and so I have been busy with a paper that I had to submit, the little time I had for RFCE was spend in futility perusing a bug (might be related to jessiecat's).

I cannot "clean" the the old tech three, if I remove all the techs and all the units and remove all the entries from Rhyes.h and consts.py, and all the following references that I could find, the game crashes on turn 14 (when I hit enter). There is a problem somewhere in the code, that references something from the tech tree and I have been unable to find it so far. Will keep on working.

I figured people were busy with other things for the past week. I take it the bug you're referring to is the one where the AI won't expand. Sorry you've encountered a glitch with coding the tech tree. Do you still want me to continue work on refining our tech tree? If so, I'd appreciate some feedback from you, st. lucifer and others on the lastest version.:)

BTW Maybe we could seek out Rhye's opinion on your coding problems, now that he's back in circulation? Also sedna 17 might be able to help when he's back from Germany.

I will try it again today and I could definitely use some pointers from Rhye. His code has virtually no comments in it and not everything is self explanatory.

Keep on working on the tree, we still need to refine it before it code it. First we need to remove the old tree, then we need to add the new one.

I figured people were busy with other things for the past week. I take it the bug you're referring to is the one where the AI won't expand. Sorry you've encountered a glitch with coding the tech tree. Do you still want me to continue work on refining our tech tree? If so, I'd appreciate some feedback from you, st. lucifer and others on the lastest version.:)

BTW Maybe we could seek out Rhye's opinion on your coding problems, now that he's back in circulation? Also sedna 17 might be able to help when he's back from Germany.

I've got the new version, but haven't had any time this week to look at it. I'll probably sit down with it tomorrow and give you feedback over the weekend.

It is Friday night and my wife is out of town (conference). There is hardly any way I can get any more bored than this, so what is left - work on RFC Europe.

So I started looking for the turn 15 bug. So far I have been unable to do a full debug build for RFCE, hence I had to find the problem on trial and error like I was Fred Flintstone or something. Anyways, after 4 hours I figured that I was missing and XML file and the program was reading the original Civ4 XML infoClass file and it was thinking that there are more units in the game than what there actually are.....

Curses and all, I figured it and now I have the next test version. It is by far the most boring test version, it has the updated settler maps as an improvement, however, the tech tree has been completely stripped. There is one tech (+ Future tech), one religion that gets founded, workers can build only roads and there are only workers, warriors, settlers and barbarian animals.

For the jessiecat's bug: I have not done nay work on the random events and there might be some problems there. If the problem occurred once and does not occur after reloading old enough auto-save it might be a random event issue. I have also cleared many other bugs that I found (mostly due to the different map sizes) I am not sure. Lets put the tech tree and units and civics together and then we will see what left-over bugs we have (probably a lot)

Sigh, I have a problem uploading the test version. I wil try tomorrow and don't worry, you have not missed anything.

It is Friday night and my wife is out of town (conference). There is hardly any way I can get any more bored than this, so what is left - work on RFC Europe.

So I started looking for the turn 15 bug. So far I have been unable to do a full debug build for RFCE, hence I had to find the problem on trial and error like I was Fred Flintstone or something. Anyways, after 4 hours I figured that I was missing and XML file and the program was reading the original Civ4 XML infoClass file and it was thinking that there are more units in the game than what there actually are.....

Curses and all, I figured it and now I have the next test version. It is by far the most boring test version, it has the updated settler maps as an improvement, however, the tech tree has been completely stripped. There is one tech (+ Future tech), one religion that gets founded, workers can build only roads and there are only workers, warriors, settlers and barbarian animals.

For the jessiecat's bug: I have not done nay work on the random events and there might be some problems there. If the problem occurred once and does not occur after reloading old enough auto-save it might be a random event issue. I have also cleared many other bugs that I found (mostly due to the different map sizes) I am not sure. Lets put the tech tree and units and civics together and then we will see what left-over bugs we have (probably a lot)

Sigh, I have a problem uploading the test version. I wil try tomorrow and don't worry, you have not missed anything.

Sounds like you're getting somewhere now. Best of luck. Anyway, I've come up with a list of units based on the tech tree so far. We can get art for all of these from RFC or the Charlemagne scenario. These are the basic units available in 500AD which can be upgraded with certain techs.

.................................../...>Phalanx (6.1)
Spearman.................../(Byzantines only)
(str.4, m.1)..................\....>Pikeman(6.1)...................>Papal Pikemen(Swiss pikemen)
...................................\.....(needs Machinery).....(needs Divine Right-8.1) all non-Muslim civs)
.....................................\> Landsknecht(6.1)....................(Charlemagne art)
..........................................(Germans and Austrians only?)

>>>>from Pikeman.....................>Musketmen(10.1)............>Musketeer((14.2)
...............................................(ne eds Gunpowder and............(needs Replacement Parts)
.................................................M ilitary Tradition)......................and Military Science)

..................................../>Longbowman(6.1)
Archer........................./(needs Guilds)
(3.1) (Charl. art)..........-.............................................>Heavy Crossbowman(10.1)
.................................\....>Crossbowman(6.1.....................\(Charl.art)
...................................\........needs Engineering).......................\(needs Plate Armour)
.................................................. ...............................................\
.................................................. ................................................ \Grenadier(12.2)
.................................................. .................................................. \(needs Chemistry and
.................................................. .................................................. ./Military Science)
.................................................. ................................................../
.......................................>Praetorian(8.1)................................... .../
Swordsman..............(Byzantines only -needs Machinery)[/I.............../]
(6.1) (Charl. art) \................................................. ....................../
.........................\.............>Maceman (8.1)..................................../
............................................(needs Machinery).............>Heavy Swordsman(10.1)
.................................................. .............................(Charl. art.)(needs Plate Armour)


Berserker
(8.1) (Norse or Franks only) UU?


Scout......................................>Explorer(4.2) (needs Machinery)
(1.2)


Mounted Infantryman
(5.2) (Charl. art)............................>Light Cavalry(6.3) Can be upgraded with muskets
.................................................. ......(Charl. art)(needs Farriers)

(Note: Arab and Cordoban UU's replace light cavalry with Ghazi cav.(8.3) and Berber cav.(8.3)
using Persian Immortal and Carthaginian Numidian cav. art, respectively.)
Also the Bulgarian UU, Konnik cavalry could replace light cav. using Mongol keshik art (8.3)

Horse Archer................>Cataphract(needs Farriers and Engineering)(12.2) UU?
(6.2)...............\............................. .....(Byzantines only)
.......................\
........................\............>Heavy Cavalry(10.2)
.........................\..................(Charl . art.) (needs Farriers and Engineering)
..........................\
...........................\
............................\............>Knight(12.2) (Charl. art) (needs Guilds and
.............................\.................... .Military Tradition)
............................../\
............................./...\...........>Cuirassier(14.2)
............................/......\........(needs Military Tactics and Gunpowder)
.........................../.................................................. .......\
........................../.................................................. ..........\
.................>Cossack(16.2)..................................... ............./\> Cavalry(20.2)
..............(needs Military Tactics and Gunpowder)..................../........(needs Military Science
.................(Moscow and Kievan Rus only)............................/........and Scientific Method)


Catapult......................>Trebuchet(6.1).....................>Cannon(12.1)
(5.1[I])..............................([I]needs Siege Engines)..............(needs Military Tactics +Gunpowder)



........................../>Caravel(3.3)............>Galleon(4.4)...........>Privateer(6.4)
Galley(2.2)........../..(needs Shipbuilding)...(needs Astronomy)...(needs Military Science)
(needs Astrolabe)\
.........................\>Carrack(3.3).........>East Indiaman(6.4).......>Frigate(8.4)
......................(needs Shipbuilding)...(needs Astronomy and...(needs Miliitary Science
.................................................. ..Trading Companies)..........and Scientific Method)

There are three UU for the Byzantines?

There are three UU for the Byzantines?

No. I don't mean unique units in the RFC sense. Just civ-specific, mostly for the art. Like phalanx instead of pikeman with same strength. The Byzantine UU should prob. be the cataphract IMO.Though I think the Byzantines and the Arabs should start with stronger units in the beginning. But that's open for discussion.
What do you think so far?
I'm still editing the post as we speak.:)

I wouldn't put too much thought into the units and techs yet. A lot would eventually change, I think for now we should come up with a playable backbone of everything. Then we can tweak and balance it.

However, you are doing a good job. I will try to build some simple tools for editing the tech tree easier and will start coding (probably next week).

On three browsers and two operating systems I have been unable to upload anything to Rapidshare.

The file with the mod is too-bid to put on the forum as an attachment, anyone has any ideas on how else to send it?

EDIT: Let me know if this works and you are able to get the file.

http://files.filefront.com/RFCEurope+tst+Sep15zip/;11803566;/fileinfo.html

I was able to successfully download the files (though I won't get a chance to test it immediately). Civics will be coming... soon...

I was able to successfully download the files (though I won't get a chance to test it immediately). Civics will be coming... soon...

Civics will be coded soon? That's great. Look forward to a new playable version.:)

Yeah, I've got the Civics nearly done -- hope to finish and post them tonight. As my first bit of XML-modding it took a bit longer than anticipated. I did need to modify some of the bonuses a bit to utilize built-in effects, but I tried to stick close to the spirit of what people suggested. Anyhow, the nice thing about doing portions outside of the dll is that people can immediately add these small files into their version.

Yeah, I've got the Civics nearly done -- hope to finish and post them tonight. As my first bit of XML-modding it took a bit longer than anticipated. I did need to modify some of the bonuses a bit to utilize built-in effects, but I tried to stick close to the spirit of what people suggested. Anyhow, the nice thing about doing portions outside of the dll is that people can immediately add these small files into their version.

Sounds encouraging. Maybe you and 3miro could add your stuff together and
post the next version of the test game (for those of us too dumb to add it ourselves:lol:).

I will post a new test version with the tail of the tech tree and the civics when I come back. If anyone can make a WB file with the starting Byzantine Empire that would be nice too.

(Start with the Byzantines, without doing any turns, build all the cities that you want and give them some population, then save the file and upload it. Without building and techs, Byzantines would have huge maintenance cost initially, but that would be fixed later).

can I try the test version PLZ!!!:)

can I try the test version PLZ!!!:)

First test version unstable and buggy.
Second version out soon. Watch this thread for the link.:)

I should warn interested parties/lurkers that this mod doesn't really play yet, these are just builds to iron out some of the basic mechanics. That said, I finally squashed the last (glaringly obvious) bug I was having with the Civics, and have packaged up the full mod here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/146680401/RFCEurope_Sept19.zip.html

Also see the wiki for the changes I made to the civics-- mostly to make them possible to implement without changing the dll. I also changed the names of the two monarchies from absolute->divine and constitutional->limited to fit better on the civics screen. I learned how to edit the graphic files (.dds) Civ uses and made a new button for "Divine Monarchy" -- hover over it in the Civics screen to see it. Other graphics haven't been changed yet (and probably won't for a while), this was only to test my ability to do this later.

For 3Miro's benefit, the new/modified files are:

XML/GameInfo/CIV4CivicInfo.xml
/CIV4VoteInfo.xml

/Text/CIV4GameText_RFCCivics.xml
/CIV4GameTextInfos_Objects.xml

/Civilizations/CIV4CivilizationInfos.xml
/CIV4LeaderHeadInfos.xml

Art/Interface/Buttons/civics/divine.dds

If we're both going to working on the code concurrently, we should really put it under version control. I use svn myself, if you're familiar with it that would be the easiest thing to do.

sedna17, I have never used svn. Can you point a tutorial page or something, do w need a centralized server?

Other than that, yes we need a way to coordinate. Leaders have changed since the last test version, I added the religions. You now added the civics and the only way to do it is to go and manually copy your changes into my file.

3Miro, svn does require a bit of initial investment, but one of it's nicest features is the ability to semi-automatically merge text files. The best guide is here (http://svnbook.red-bean.com/). Don't worry, virtually everything you need to know is in chapter 2. I suppose you'd need a Windows client, but I have no first-hand experience of this. I use a Mac with a Windows partition basically only for Civ, so I use svn from the command line.

As we can't use my normal server for this, we'll have to go with some other host. I'd heard good things about Assembla (http://www.assembla.com/), so I created a (free up to 500 MB) account over there and did an initial "import" of the RFCEurope code. Seems to work pretty smooth and seamless. If you go there and sign up for an account I'll give you access to this project and you can experiment with svn (obviously at this point we've got nothing invested in the project history, so you can feel free to experiment without any risk). You'll just need to send me your login name over there.

I do think by-hand merging will inevitably lead to mistakes, but it's totally your call if you feel like teaching yourself the basics of svn. I can certainly commit to more conscientiously adding merge-helping comments around any code I change (I'm afraid I didn't do a good job of that with the Civics files I've updated so far).

Oh, and as an example of the latter approach. Here is a new stability.py file with the civics-stability changed to new values. Each place I've made new code I've done:

#========== BEGIN NEW CODE 9/21/2008 =========#
#========== END NEW CODE 9/21/2008 =========#

Around the sections changed, and some minimal comments which would hopefully help you (or someone) successfully integrate.

Thanks I will look at it. First thing today would be to merge the files that you already have (Stability and Leaderhead infos and all the others). Then I will come up with the new test version which we can use as a base for svn and start working from there.

Thanks to sedna17, we have civics incorporated into the game now. Couple of notes:

1. There was a small typo in the Stability.py file. On line 472 there was iCivic as opposed to iCivic0, I fixed that. I usually try starting with a later civ (Venecia or something) to test the code and look for PythonErr in the MyGames/Bts/Logs.

2. The inclusion of CIV4GameTextInfos_Objects.xml messed up some of the civ name keys. The English was changed to the English Empire and so on. I removed some of the redundant keys from the file, but probably not all of them.

3. Of course you know that, but leaders now need on top of everything else also decision on their favorite civics. Some such as Arabia still prefer Theocracy, however, new civs such as Bulgaria need new favorite civics.

4. Sedna17 mentioned something about changing the .dll file to accommodate the civics. I can do that, however, I am not sure about the changes that need to be made. What exactly cannot be done via Python and XML.

On Assembla: Assembla has 30 days free trial and it is payed afterwards. I don't want to sound cheap to anyone, however, at the present I am just a college student and while I make enough money I suffer from no excess of cash. $100 a year could be better spend to update my dying video card for example. The monthly is the main reason I don't play MMOs and waited a couple of month after the release to get BtS. I know it sounds bad, but I don't want to be paying to make the mod.

Having said that I definitely recognize the need for code coordination. I guess for the time being we can simply split the responsibilities. Sedna17 is fluent in XML and I am so far the only one working in C++. I would like to export all the hidden modifiers for the civs from C++ to Pythons so that anyone with a good text editor could participate in balancing the mod. In the mean time, sedna17 could add all the units and buildings (and even art, I still don't know how to open/edit .dds files).

When we start working on UHV and UP, we would definitely need some way (free) to code-coordinate.

Current test version (included civics and tech tree). Please review the tree and comment on possible discrepancies.

http://files.filefront.com/RFCEurope+tst+Sep22zip/;11865787;/fileinfo.html