Civ colors:
I find most colors not suitable to their civs. Are they placeholders or... ?

Good points:

Just tried a test game as Cordoba and played until 1203AD. I used Worldbuilder to add an Islamic missionary so they could start with a religion. Also 2 workers and 2 Berber cavalry for exploring. A couple of observations.
1. It takes 65 turns to research Feudalism which I think they should have at the start.
They need it to change civics. Same with Civil Service.


Tech cost has not been decided yet. Also unique tech rate, unit building cost and so on has not been decided upon yet.


2. Its very hard to generate wealth without beelining to Courthouses and Markets ASAP,
before building any new cities. I ended up with 7 cities by the end but money always runs
out with your units on strike no matter what you do.


Markets are available from the start (with Map Making), however, it takes time to build without the whip.


3. Stability is a big issue for everybody except the Byzantines. I survived as
Cordoba but got fairly unstable at the end.


What does the stability screen shows. Is it complaining about cities/economy/expansion... Some of those are modifiable. Also Byzantines should have very poor stability and cities outside the core do flip away, but the core remains intact.


4. Everybody else just collapses very early, even the Arabs and Bulgarians who barely
survive until 1000AD. And Portugal still becomes Cordoba's vassal on the first turn.
5. The Byzantines are incredibly powerful. The no-collapse UP gives them an enormous
advantage. And they are very aggressive in attacking their neighbours. What I can't
understand is where they get the money to build all those units and still be miles ahead
in technology.
Here are the final screenshots.


The power of the Byzantines come from the fact that hey start with a lot of cities and have a lot of buildings in them. They can run a fair amount of merchants as well as some scientists from turn 1. Then they get feudalism quickly and upgrade all their defenses to Longbowman. They can usually do that before the Arabian spawn, leaving both the Arabian and Bulgarian horseman with 6 vs 8 odds (not counting the city defense bonuses that Longbowmans get). Things would have to be reconsidered from that respect. Also the naturally strong Byzantine penalties are not implemented yet.

@onedreamer: When did the Byzantine Empire collapse? So long as they held Constantinople they were alive and in the game. Byzantines collapses for a short period of time only after the Crusaders conquered the city. That is reflected in the UP, if the Byzantines loose Constantinople they loose the UP and almost instantly collapse.

I've just tried another game as Burgundy. See what I mean about stability? I've collapsed in one turn from 927 to 930. As you can see, civics and cities are fine. But economy, expansion and foriegn are poor even though I have just built 2 more cities and my foriegn relations are good. I've included the saved games. Maybe you can spot the problem.

@onedreamer: When did the Byzantine Empire collapse? So long as they held Constantinople they were alive and in the game. Byzantines collapses for a short period of time only after the Crusaders conquered the city. That is reflected in the UP, if the Byzantines loose Constantinople they loose the UP and almost instantly collapse.

- Byzantium didn't collapse in the RFC term but did collapse in a less strict term more than once. Let's put it this way: its history doesn't suggest more stability than most other civs in the mod, but rather its ability to recover from instability. By your own statement, the Byzantine Empire "resurrected" even after loosing Constantinopolis, so again the UP is not historically appropriate.
- Most civs will very likely collapse if they loose the capital. I really wouldn't mention this as a sort of counterbalance to the power...

On stability:

I recommend we port the RFC-RAND style Stability screen into RFC Europe. It's very helpful for people to be able to see numbers when we're trying to figure out if things are working as we intend.

The current stability settings are mostly un-tweaked and appropriate for normal RFC. Our map is substantially bigger (more good/colonizable land area), and so I think we'll have to change the stability penalties for having more cities. That seems to be one of the problems.

Civ IV generally punishes early rapid expansion with economic penalties. RFC overcomes this on a case-by-case basis for big empires. We will have to do the same.

On Byzantium:

3Miro is correct that we haven't yet given Byzantium the massive penalties to research/etc. that we plan to give, nor have we given the later civs appropriate starting units/techs. Thus it is not surprising that Byzantium is still a superpower. Let's finish building the basic structure before worrying about changing things. There was quite a bit of agreement about the Byzantine UP at the time. It may need to be tweaked, of course.

I have been considering moving longbows to a later technology, and perhaps weakening them a point. Currently they are present for so many years that it's hard to have them be a reasonably balanced unit over that whole stretch. We could compensate by making normal archers a little stronger. Currently they're a little useless.

Overall, I'd like to have archers be less dominant as city defenders. I only worry about the balance effect this will have and that it will be confusing to new players.

Oh, and I just wanted to thank 3Miro for his fantastic work on the code. He's added a LOT of really useful comments to the python code which make it a lot easier to figure out how to change things. If people want to see what we mean when we talk about tweaking individual civs, take a look at Assets/Python/RFCEBalance.py for the variety of knobs we have available to make things work out the way we want.

I didn't run the quantitative tests he asked for (bad me) on speed, but getting to the later starts certainly seems much faster thanks to the porting of UPs into C.

There was quite a bit of agreement about the Byzantine UP at the time.

What kind of reasoning is this ? If Humanity had been thinking like this, we would be discussing all this stuff in a cavern rubbing our hands in the cold Winter.

Btw, it seems to me that the idea was just taken by the thread on adding a Byzantine Civ in RFC by Jnavy, without much further discussion or thought about it.

Anyways, mine were just comments, go on with your mod as you wish... I just remembered why I quit discussing about it some time ago.

Hey onedreamer,

I'm sorry. My comment was too dismissive of your opinion. We do struggle with the problem of attempting to incorporate everyone's opinion and attempting to get things decided and coded and then ignored for a while so that we can go on to the next area. It may be particularly frustrating to some of our idea contributors to see what the coders actually implement.*

Our goal is to get to the point where the mod is playable. At that point, we will continue to change things around in order to obtain a really fun and historically interesting mod. You may well be absolutely correct that the UP we've given the Byzantines at this point makes them behave ahistorically. I maintain that we can't really know this yet until more progress is made. I hope we can revisit the decision "later".

If this approach is not too frustrating for you, I hope you will stick around. We really do welcome all opinions and contributions.

*Will jessiecat forgive me when he realizes that I didn't give Cordoba their Soria in the current version because I couldn't get that building model working properly?

ok, sorry about that. But don't mess with Cordoba or Jessicat will eat you ;)

ok, sorry about that. But don't mess with Cordoba or Jessicat will eat you ;)

As far as i remember, I proposed the Byzantine UP and yes I followed the discussions on the RFC Byzantine tread. You can go back on the tread and read the discussion, (which unfortunately may take you a while, due to the size of the tread). The agreement came from everyone who was actively posting at the time.

Byzantines in RFCE do become unstable and cities do declare independence. The UP gives them the power that as long as they keep Constantinople the Empire would not collapse and the core (Greece) would remain loyal (would not declare independence). I don't see how that contradicts your view of "recover from instability". The only effects from stability in the game are secession and civil war.

I played Bulgaria and after 2 turns I had conquered Constantinople. 1 more turn and the Byzantine empire collapsed. I got the 2nd UHV requirement really fast. All the Byzantine cities (which became independent after it collapsed) had only 1 archer and were really easy to capture because I started with a huge amount of Bulgarian horse archers.
The 3th UHV requirement (Build 8 Orthodox Monasteries and 2 Orthodox Cathedrals and 8 Libraries by 1600AD.) didn't work. I am sure I had build everything. Double-double checked it, but it didn't get acknowledged.

I have to admit I played Viceroy, but I had a really stable empire. One thing I thought was strange was that I only got 2 stars for cities even though I had good cities. All my 8 cities had at least military units, a courthouse, temple and monastery. Overall my stability was switching between shaky and stable and got once to unstable after I switched government when I was shaky.
Expansion got to 4 stars at the beginning because of all the conquests, but went down to 2 after a long while. I hadn't build or conquered since then.

Some small things:
-Portuguese is called Prtuguese, a little typo.
-Winged Hussar hasn't noted that it is a UU for Poland nor what unit it should replace in the civilopedia.
-Venice and Genoa start at war with Rome and get killed immediately. I don't know if they supposed to be at war, but should survive when they got more advanced units/techs or it is something that shouldn't be. Just thought I should note.

I played Bulgaria and after 2 turns I had conquered Constantinople. 1 more turn and the Byzantine empire collapsed. I got the 2nd UHV requirement really fast. All the Byzantine cities (which became independent after it collapsed) had only 1 archer and were really easy to capture because I started with a huge amount of Bulgarian horse archers.
The 3th UHV requirement (Build 8 Orthodox Monasteries and 2 Orthodox Cathedrals and 8 Libraries by 1600AD.) didn't work. I am sure I had build everything. Double-double checked it, but it didn't get acknowledged.

The amount of Konniks is for test purposes only. For the third UHV, I tested it once, but something could have been messed up afterwards (by me), could you send a savegame.


I have to admit I played Viceroy, but I had a really stable empire. One thing I thought was strange was that I only got 2 stars for cities even though I had good cities. All my 8 cities had at least military units, a courthouse, temple and monastery. Overall my stability was switching between shaky and stable and got once to unstable after I switched government when I was shaky.

Expansion got to 4 stars at the beginning because of all the conquests, but went down to 2 after a long while. I hadn't build or conquered since then.


I think I know what causes the city stability problem, I will see if I can fix it.


Some small things:
-Portuguese is called Prtuguese, a little typo.
-Winged Hussar hasn't noted that it is a UU for Poland nor what unit it should replace in the civilopedia.
-Venice and Genoa start at war with Rome and get killed immediately. I don't know if they supposed to be at war, but should survive when they got more advanced units/techs or it is something that shouldn't be. Just thought I should note.

I will fix the typo. The UU are sedna's department. For some reason everyone starts at war with the independents, I am not sure why. I need to check that.

I think I know what causes the city stability problem, I will see if I can fix it.
Nice!

I have some questions regarding the Byzantine.

Why are they called Byzantines? Two quotes of the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantian_Empire)page:
"The term "Byzantine Empire" is an invention of historians and was never used during the Empire's lifetime. " "It was referred to by its inhabitants and neighbouring nations simply as the Roman Empire (in Greek Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων, Basileia Rhōmaiōn), the Empire of the Romans or Romania (Ῥωμανία, Rhōmaniā)."

Is there going to be something that simulates the Roman retake (http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_0600.html)of Rome at around 600 AD?

@3Miro:
Here's the safe:

ok, sorry about that. But don't mess with Cordoba or Jessicat will eat you ;)

I too would like you to stay involved in this project. I've not always agreed with you on other threads but your contibutions are always intelligent and informative. Plus who else is going to join me in pushing the Muslim civs? And I could never harm sedna who remains a gentleman as always. I'm rooting for Cordoba as one day it will "own" this mod. Like you favour the Romans. Like 3Miro favours Bulgaria? Like Cornelio favours the Dutch? Like sedna favours the (who knows?) Like st. lucifer favours umm....(the Texans?). The great thing about this project now is we've got input from a much wider base than before, with more diverse skills and a wider cultural perpective.:)

@sedna. I understand your decision. Though I wish the garden could be as powerful as the watermill (Soria) which was supposed to be a productive building. (Maybe +1 food and +1 hammer instead of health and happiness?).

@ 3Miro. Thanks for all the Konnicks and Ghazis. What about Cordoba though? Seriously, I think one of the factors affecting stability other than expansion, is that most civs don't start with any religion and thus can't build any religious buildings. So tomorrow I'm going to run a comparative test on Spain which tends to collapse early on even with only 2 cities. First without religion and then with Catholicism. Lets see if that makes a difference.
BTW It is Venetian not Venecian.

Bulgarian bug found and fixed. Working on stability.

I too would like you to stay involved in this project. I've not always agreed with you on other threads but your contibutions are always intelligent and informative. Plus who else is going to join me in pushing the Muslim civs? And I could never harm sedna who remains a gentleman as always. I'm rooting for Cordoba as one day it will "own" this mod. Like you favour the Romans. Like 3Miro favours Bulgaria? Like Cornelio favours the Dutch? Like sedna favours the (who knows?) Like st. lucifer favours umm....(the Texans?). The great thing about this project now is we've got input from a much wider base than before, with more diverse skills and a wider cultural perpective.:)

@sedna. I understand your decision. Though I wish the garden could be as powerful as the watermill (Soria) which was supposed to be a productive building. (Maybe +1 food and +1 hammer instead of health and happiness?).

@ 3Miro. Thanks for all the Konnicks and Ghazis. What about Cordoba though? Seriously, I think one of the factors affecting stability other than expansion, is that most civs don't start with any religion and thus can't build any religious buildings. So tomorrow I'm going to run a comparative test on Spain which tends to collapse early on even with only 2 cities. First without religion and then with Catholicism. Lets see if that makes a difference.
BTW It is Venetian not Venecian.


I'm doing my level best not to favor anyone, least of all my adopted state. Favoring the Texans is like favoring the Mongols.


I am in favor of starting many civs with missionaries. Cordoba, Spain, and Portugal pretty much demand it - if Portugal started out with a missionary (or with a pre-existing, Catholic Lisboa?), would they always vassalize every turn?

St. Lucifer, do you mean vassalize on the first turn. If it is a problem, we may have to work on it. Arabia currently often vassalizes to the Byzantines. Maybe if we make it so that nations can only vassalize if they share religion?

Starting Units have not been discussed anyway.

@Cornelio: what else would you call the Byzantines, Roman or East Roman Empire would be controversial, there was a very long tread on the topic some time ago. Greek Empire is inaccurate since some emperors were Armenian. What else is left?

Bulgarian bug was due to the discrepancy of Consts.py and the new XML files. Fixed.

Portugal typo. Fixed.

Stability expansion bug is due to the choice of Normal areas. Spanish and Cordoban areas overlap, so do Frankish and Burgundians. Nations get stability penalty for foreign cities in their Normal area of expansion. That is now changed to core areas only. Should fix the issue for now. Another approach would be to make the first tree-four foreign cities not count. Alternatively: jessiecat you should have been more aggressive in the Conquista.

Looking into the Economy stability now.

EDIT: expansion stability could also be handled by reducing the penalty for foreign cities. Now it is 7 per city.

A quick report on my little Spanish experiment. Having a religion at the start or not doesn't really make much difference. Though I still think civs should start with a missionary so they can found a state religion. The problem with stability starts with building a 3rd. city. and soon after you build a 4th. one you collapse. Reducing the favoured area to core only will help. But I think exempting the first 4 cities from any penalty whatsoever would be the way to go.

oh no, don't get me started on the Eastern Roman Empire :D
I'm gonna test this weekend, which civs are in need to be tested ? Russians ?

oh no, don't get me started on the Eastern Roman Empire :D
I'm gonna test this weekend, which civs are in need to be tested ? Russians ?

Try Venice and Genoa first. That way you won't have to travel too far from home this weekend.:lol:

I started a game as Venice, but didn't play much since I was destroyed. These are a few observations:
- for some reason, I started at war with Rome, which destroyed me. Indipendent units could walk in the "jungle".
- Byzantium was huge when I started... all other civs were 2 cities, except Burgundy which expanded all the way to the Flanders (very good job there :D ). Byz. was at least 10 cities...
- Merchant Republic has really strong boni/mali. Perhaps both should be toned down a bit... for example ditch the production bonus and +1 cost per military unit or -50% military production. Venice was involved in really a lot of wars.
- I'd give Venice a UP that deals with mercenaries, like Carthage in RFC, if no other civs has it already.
- Should Venice start with a galley ? ;)
- The Portuguese are mispelled Prtuguese; Muscowans doesn't sound right... should be either Muscowites or Muscowyans; Venecia is spanish, should be The Venetians, Venezia, Venetian.

I think Muscovites is the real term, Moscow is Moskva in Russian so Muscovites is better than Muscowites.

@onedreamer: thanks for the venetian clarification. That would be fixed (for the purpose of the code the name would stay as venecia since it is too much trouble to change it, but on the screen only Venezia would appear.

for Moscow: in Bulgarian it is Moscovtsi, but I would rather ask for a Russian to give his word on what is appropriate.

Carthaginian UP is already reserved for Genoa (IIRK)

I will look at the independents and the war.

Starting units and straiting techs have not been discussed yet, so use the WB to add something useful.

For the Polish UP: why attach to a civic and thus restricting the player? I see the point that liberty doesn't make sense if running Religious Law + Theocracy, but what is wrong with Republic or Merchant Republic. Why don't we make the UP: +10% science + 1 happiness unless running an oppressive civic (opressive being Religious and Feudal Law, Theocracy and Absolute Monarchy).

EDIT: I tweaked some stability parameters for the cities, expansion and economy.

EDIT2: Next test version is out.

I missed something, where can I find the test versions to play?

I missed something, where can I find the test versions to play?

RFCE Files thread. First post. Nov.7 test version.

Test report. Nov.7 version. Played as Cordoba. 8 cities, running Bureaucracy, Feudal Labor, Organized Religion, Vassalage with 2 vassals. Collapsed 1242AD due to 1 star expansion, 2 star economy. Arabs collapsed before 1200. Byzantines still much too powerful. Even expanding in N. Africa and Italy. Definitely need those modifiers.

I have not worked on the Byzantine problem yet, but stability should have been much better this time. I will test it myself and see what is happening.

When I tried to download the nov 7 update, it said it supported 10 downloads only and I was too late.

I have a bit more time to think now that the election's over, so I think I'm going to work up a proposed colony list of my own in the next few days. It'll probably be quite similar to Cornelio's.
Am I finished here?

I could do the Austrian and Dutch settler maps. Is that all right?

I will try to fix the 10 downloads thing. Also, Cornelio, do you mean city name maps?

Edit: You should be able to download the zip now.

Yes I did. I found the CityNameManeger.py file and I think I can do it. Is there some sort of utility program for this?

I could also do the renameCities part for these civs (and others if you like).

When I tried to download the nov 7 update, it said it supported 10 downloads only and I was too late.


Am I finished here?

I could do the Austrian and Dutch settler maps. Is that all right?

Are you asking if I'm taking over from you as far as the colony list goes? I'm not trying to reduce or eliminate your input. With most of the tasks we've worked on so far, there have been competing proposals, and the final version is some combination of what we've got. I thought that, rather than continuing to propose additions and small changes to your list, which gets confusing, I'd work up another full one. Again, while nominally I'm in charge here, I'm not interested in or comfortable being a dictator, particularly as Sedna and Miro are doing all of the coding.

So, no - I hope you aren't done. There will always be more to do.

@Cornelio: the way we are doing the city name maps is via a spreadsheet. We had one somewhere, (look at the wiki). We would enter the names in excel and sedna would conver them into code. As for the renaming, we decided to rename cities only if they appear on the city name map, i.e. Byzantines start with "Hadrianopolis", but if the city was to be destroyed and reset or conquered by Bulgaria, the new name would be "Odrin". Turks would call it Ederne. There is none of the RFC "nit-picking" of the sort: if Constantinople is Byzantine and Germany conquers it, it is renamed Konstantinople. If it is Turkish (Istanbul) and is being conquered it is called Istanboul or something. We decided to leave that part out.

@jessiecat: the entire problem with stability was that the idiot did not code it correctly (I shall not name myself, I mean the idiot). The game is actually playable now, you should see no problems in the next version.

@jessiecat: the entire problem with stability was that the idiot did not code it correctly (I shall not name myself, I mean the idiot). The game is actually playable now, you should see no problems in the next version.

No problem. I would never call any of us an idiot. Maybe sometimes we are a little less perfect than others.:D

Any chance of adding some modifiers to the Byzantines to tone them down a bit, like you mentioned before? They seem amazingly aggressive and never want to make peace once you're at war with them. Just tried a game as Bulgaria. Took 3 cities and tried to consolidate but they refused to make peace. Suddenly about 1000 they turned up with a huge army of cataphracts and sacked 3 of mine. They had already collapsed the Arabs. You don't want to mess with these guys. They'll get you in the end.:lol:

Hello, thought I'd give Genoa a whirl. Fully aware that this is not a playable version etc. . ., but thought I'd give a more or less full rundown now. I don't know how to do the fancy screen shots, so I'll try to be verbose.

Loading time was 20 minutes. For play purposes I'd recommend more gold, more advanced units (started with 4 warriors, two settlers). I'd add a worker, a fishing boat, sub iin archers and either pikeman. I met Burgundy, which promptly collapsed. Out of the corner of my map I could see Byzantium laying siege to Venice, which is captured a turn later with heavy crossbowman, maceman and knights. I'd also recommend Genoa start with mapmaking, and make it necessary construction of a fishing boat. (I was frustrated that I could build boats, but not use them).

I founded Genoa and Lucca with my settlers (I thought Lucca would be in the core area, but alas I discovered differently, either that or that civil war event still impacts all cities aside from capital, not all cities except those in core area).

A few turns later I founded what I think is where Nice is, though could be Aix or Marseilles, it ended up being named Cumae. Later founded a city near Albertville, which was name Arpinum, 2 or 3 tiles S/SW of Lake Geneva. I also founded Bastia on Corsica. It would be nice if there were some useful reason to colonize the Mediterranean islands beyond the UHV's.

Met Spain, Hungary and Andalusia, which were all Orthodox, which was frustrating as Catholicism spread quickly to my cities. Orhtodoxy seemed the default religion, as all civs I met were Orthodox except the Norse, who were Muslims. Spain and Andalusia collapsed shortly after Portugal's arrival. Andalusia first, then Spain.

Later met Austria, who had the city of "Zagrab" (2 "a's). I believe it is "Zagreb" in all languages except Hungarian (which has accent acutes over both "a's"), and that the Austrians called it Agram.

Had a few great people, all seemed to appear at the right time, though the names were still off e.g my first great merchant was JM Keynes.

By 1290 I had built some buildings. I should add that the graphics and the map etc. . . all look beautiful. When I took up close looks at my cities they all looked nice, but the Catholic church I think was stolen from the meso-american artpack, no?

Byzantium is running roughshod all over Italy, having captured Venice, now a whopping size 19, and Rome, a svelte size 6, which it captured with hussars and Swiss. It also vassalized the Turks more or less on day one.

The "... celebrate the electorate day" is written as "TXT_KEY_WE_LOVE_THE_ELECTORATE. . .".

You know what's coming next, Byzantium DOW on me and immediately destroys my only source of iron to the E of Lucca. Another issue, there seemed to be a paucity of iron on the map, and I think iron is basic for all civs survival in this mod. Placement of it near all the capitals or at least in the core area would be good. I fought them off with longbowmen promoted to guerilla 2 (guerilla is the hills upgrade, right?), they were at war with Austria and Hungary at the same time so didn't really commit to the war with me). With the balestrieri (awesome unit, BTW, versatile, balanced, maybe a tad too powerful but I think little Genoa will need it), was able to secure the iron and begin building an army of balestrieri to fight back and perhaps take Rome, which was defended by only two Swiss pikeman. The mercenaries available in 1413 where axeman, archers and warriors, so not very helpful .About 2 turns into the counteroffensive idea Hungary was defeated and Austria capitulated (and I think the Kievan Rus collapsed as well), leaving Byzantium to focus on me. I was able to hold the iron and Lucca, barely, as they started attacking with grenadiers and cuirassiers, and decided the situation was hopeless. I switched to Divine Monarchy from Electorate (more for fun than anything else), and civil war ensued; I lost most of my army aside from Genoa's garrison.

In world builder I checked out the scene. Byzantium is huge, directly controls all of Italy except the city of Genoa, much of the Ukarain, the Balkans, Wallachia, Moldovia, Bulgaria, Greece, coastal Anatolia (the Turks, their vassals, have most of the interior), the Levant, Egypt, and the lone city in Africa outside of Egypt: Barca (Bengazi for those following along at home).

Poland and Germany are small, growing, but backwards. 7 cities with pikeman and archers each. England is also small, has four or five cities in England and southern Scotland, but aside from London they're all misplaced. Cambridge is where Liverpool actually is, for example. They've also taken two cities in northern France, Paris and where Rouen should be (named Amiens), but I could be wrong and it should be Amiens and not Rouen, as they are fairly close. Newcastle seemed to be in the right spot though. The Norse had two cities, Aarhus and Roskilde. On a side note, I think Canute might be a better leader for the Norse, Ragnar was more of a pirate than a nation builder.

Overall, though I may seem critical above, I really liked it and thank everyone who's put so much work into it.

Civil war works just as in RFC, except for Byzantines.

The version that you were playing was severely broken in terms of stability.

Thanks for mentioning the text issue, we will fix it.

The rest is stuff that we are aware of more or less and it is still work in progress.

Currently I am uploading a new version.
-Stability is fixed, now you should not get 1 star expansion for no reason, economy should also be more stable.
-Byzantines are severely weakened (200% research, production and growth penalty plus unit maintenance cost increase), as of right now, Byzantines are probably too-weak.
-all UP are implemented except for Portugal's one, I need the colonial projects to implement it.

Enjoy!

I think someone still downloaded the old version. Sorry I post while uploading and it often takes more time to upload.

Thanks for your work 3Miro, I think the venetian and genoan UPs are much more fitting if swapped, that's what I meant.

@Cornelio

There's a little map spreadsheet at http://meat.arvixe.com/~joeyroe/rfc-europe/map301.xls, where you can put city names into comments and I have the series of scripts to convert these the appropriate format. Another option is to put in signs in the WBS and I can convert those. Dunno which you prefer.

Just been playing the latest version as Arabia and I've noticed a bit of a problem. The Arabian UP states that flipped or conquered cities get a free temple and cathedral. But when you found Islam in Damascus you get nothing, not even a free mosque. Same with any other new city you found. And although you should be able to build a Grand Mosque for every 4 mosques you have, the wiki says it's 28? mosques for every Great Mosque.
In my current game I have 8 cities. The 6 flipped or conquered ones have got both. But when I built a mosque in my holy city, Damascus, I couldn't build a Great Mosque there because I've already got 6 elsewhere.
I think this should be changed to only a free mosque in flipped, conquered or founded cities and a free mosque and Great Mosque in Damascus and Jerusalem. Sorry to be long-winded about this but these discrepancies certainly need fixing IMO.

BTW The Byzantines are much weaker but surviving this time. In my first try Bulgaria captured Constantinople within 5 turns and they collapsed immediately. The UP would work OK I think, if it was made much harder to conquer Constantinople in the early game.

EDIT: 1005AD A much more balanced game. Got the first UHV. Fairly stable. Everybody still in play.
However 3rd. UHV is incorrect. It should read East of Oran not west.

EDIT 2: Suddenly collapsed in 1242AD due to 1 star expansion and 2 star foriegn even though peace with everybody. 3 cities flipped back to the Byzantines.

Hi. I am new to the site.
I downloaded the latest version of the mod, unzipped it, transferred the inside folder to the Mods folder of BTS, loaded it, but after loading, it closed. The problematic file was the CvGameCore.dll... Please help!!!
By the way, having read much about the ''Byzantine problem'' why not change their UP to one giving defensive bonus in units inside Constantinople"?

Hi. I am new to the site.
I downloaded the latest version of the mod, unzipped it, transferred the inside folder to the Mods folder of BTS, loaded it, but after loading, it closed. The problematic file was the CvGameCore.dll... Please help!!!
By the way, having read much about the ''Byzantine problem'' why not change their UP to one giving defensive bonus in units inside Constantinople"?


Try downloading it to My Documents. Then unzip the whole file to BTS Mods. Open it. Click Public Maps.
Save the WB file to desktop as a shortcut. Then just open it from there. Works for me.:)

@ st. Lucifer

So you are going to propose a list for us to comment on?

@ Sedna

If I found a city or conquer a city, a check would be made to see if the city position is on the city-name-map and the name will be changed to that name. If it's a "-1" it will not change if you have conquered the city and it will be the top of the city-name-list if I have found the city. And rename cities is for multiple names of the same city for the same civ (Konstantinopel, Istanboul). Am I correct?

Hi. I am new to the site.
I downloaded the latest version of the mod, unzipped it, transferred the inside folder to the Mods folder of BTS, loaded it, but after loading, it closed. The problematic file was the CvGameCore.dll... Please help!!!
By the way, having read much about the ''Byzantine problem'' why not change their UP to one giving defensive bonus in units inside Constantinople"?

Actually that's a quite nice idea, but I think that unfortunately it would be too hard to code. :(

@Cornelio, yes you are technically correct for the renaming, but as of right now we are not using different names for the same city. On conquest or founding, the city name map is referenced and if there is a name corresponding to the city we use that name.

@jessiecat, Byzantines start with couple of spearman in Constantinople, however, by the time Bulgaria spawns, those are usually gone (disbanded maybe). Spearman behind City Walls and a Castle would stop any amount of Konniks and Ghazi, that should keep Constantinople safe at least initially. I will see if giving Byzantines more money initially would help.

I will change the Arabia UHV description, thanks for noting it.

I will try to see why the Arabian expansion is so poor. The territory that you have should give you stable expansion. I will check what is going on, but probably not today.

@jessiecat, Byzantines start with couple of spearman in Constantinople, however, by the time Bulgaria spawns, those are usually gone (disbanded maybe). Spearman behind City Walls and a Castle would stop any amount of Konniks and Ghazi, that should keep Constantinople safe at least initially. I will see if giving Byzantines more money initially would help.

I will change the Arabia UHV description, thanks for noting it.

I will try to see why the Arabian expansion is so poor. The territory that you have should give you stable expansion. I will check what is going on, but probably not today.

Can you change it so Damascus gets both religious buildings when it founds Islam too? And just mosques in every city would be better too, wouldn't it? Then you'd have to found your own Grand Mosque for every 4 cities. And as I said wiki description for Grand Mosque is incorrect too. (4 mosques needed not 28)

@jessiecat: actually tried that. opened the shortcut but closed after loading the mod. Are there any issues like patch compatibility?

@jessiecat: actually tried that. opened the shortcut but closed after loading the mod. Are there any issues like patch compatibility?

You need BTS 3.17, RFC 1.181. Nothing else I don't think. Have you tried opening my saved game above?

OK. So I need 3.17
What RFC edition is provided with BTS?

I opened the save game, it is actually more useful if you could give an autosave 4 - 5 turns before the collapse. That way I could see what lead to the problem.

Every Grand Mosque requires 4 Mosques. If you have conquered 6 cities then you have 6 Grand Mosques and the seventh would require 7*4 = 28 Mosques. The same issue exists in RFC. I could make it so that only the state religion and Mosques appear in the newly conquered cities.

@micbic: the files that you extracted, did you put them in your ...\Beyond the Sword\Mods folder. You should move the RFCEurope folder in ...\Beyond the Sword\Mods. Then double-click on RFCEurope.WB file in Public Maps.

I did that. Now I am getting 3.17 to solve the problem

While working on the Dutch city-name-map I found some oddities on the map.

I think a couple of plots should be changed around England and the Netherlands. I've changed about 10 plots to sea or land in the Excel file and it looks better IMO.

Also, some German and Burgundian/French cities around the Netherlands are misplaced. Bruxelles isn't at the same place as Brüssel and were I wanted to place Brussel. Same goes for other cities (Keulen, Köln, Cologne; Aken, Aachen, Aix-la-Chappelle and more).

If someone could send me the Burgundian and German Excel maps, I could fix that area for those civs.

I opened the save game, it is actually more useful if you could give an autosave 4 - 5 turns before the collapse. That way I could see what lead to the problem.

Ya sorry. This would be more useful.

Hi guys, I've just been reading the first post and some of the last posts, first time I read this thread, and I have a question:
Is this mod ready? I'm not talking about a 1.00 version, maybe it's in a testing period? Cuz' it seems like you guys are testing it out, but I didn't find any download link or something. If it's ready, I'd like to test it out and help.

Yes, the mod is in a testing period. You can download files from ''Rhye's of Europe Files '' thread.

Yes, the mod is in a testing period. You can download files from ''Rhye's of Europe Files '' thread.

Page 1 of RFC Europe Files. Nov.8 version. Try a later civ. Maybe Hungary, Poland or Kievan Rus.

BTW Only joined today? Where ya from? Welcome to CFC and RFC Europe.::)

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 159 (should be 160+ from this message onward :) )

I've been here on RFC forums for a few months now, but I don't post too many messages.
And I'm from Israel (know anyone else from Israel on these forums?)

Oh yeah, and thanks for the info :)

As for me, I am Greek.
The mod worked since upgraded to 3.17
It seems kinda interesting

Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 159 (should be 160+ from this message onward :) )

I've been here on RFC forums for a few months now, but I don't post too many messages.
And I'm from Israel (know anyone else from Israel on these forums?)

Oh yeah, and thanks for the info :)

There are a couple from Israel. Lokolus is I think. I'm orig. from Canada but live in the UK now. Welcome also.

As for me, I am Greek.
The mod worked since upgraded to 3.17
It seems kinda interesting

Ya. I meant you. First day here? Welcome. Looking for lots of input. Plenty to fix yet.

Hi there- long time lurker, first time poster. I have no knowledge of coding, but I will give any help I can

I have downloaded the latest test version and had a play through as Poland giving myself some starting techs. I only lasted until 1500. No major stabilty issues, but a large and aggressive Bulgaria attacked me with numerous horsemen and crushed me.

Also, Several states had collapsed- France and Burgundy were both gone when I spawned, Venice had been raised, and Cordoba and Spain were all collapsed. One other thing I noticed was that the city naming in England was wrong in places, with Cambridge in the north.

In general this looks to be an excellent mod in the making

Everyone,

As this thread is getting somewhat crowded with lots of different topics, I created a testing/feedback thread for gameplay experiences, bugs, and that sort of thing. Hopefully this will get us our own subforum, but even if it doesn't, go ahead and put feedback in there, ok? We should be mostly done with the civ debates that this thread was created for, but it would be nice to keep it relatively on topic for reference.

Thanks to everyone who's testing.

Hello there!
I just want to thank you all your work so far guys, this is great! :) Even if it is still not ready fun to play. Some semarks: I play with Hungarians and I recognized that UB Stronghold has only unique graphics but no special ability (I checked it more than one if I'm incorrect sorry about it). Austria is beginning with wrong names. I think there could be a mistake with that the names of the built cities are 5-6 (or don't know) lines lower. And I think that if Hungary (I mean me) didn't adopt orthodox Bulgaria and/or Byzantium would kill it. They are too strong there. And maybe civs could start with more than two settlers. I know that Magyars when came to the Carpathian Basin were like 500 000 people. And with two settlers to start in Central Europe is quite hard.
Again guys great work, congratulations!
Bence

There is no Austrian city-name-map yet, but I'm working on it.

Things like starting units, techs and balancing are something for the future.

To understand, where should I put suggestions and-or experience?

To understand, where should I put suggestions and-or experience?

If it's things you've noticed while testing, post your report on the new thread.:)

OK, I'm embarrassed to say that I am DLing the mod for the first time this morning to give it a go. Since there is no instructions that I could find in the download (nov8) i figured I'd ask here.

I have the mod loaded correctly, I assume that I play a scenario, not "play now"?

Open the Public Maps file in the Public Maps folder of the mod

Got it, thanks.

New test version is out:

-the bug with mountains producing food and hammers should now be FIXED.
-the emphasis on stability is now shifted from Agriculture alone to Agriculture + Industry. report any more stability issued.
-city maintenance cost has been reduced for all civs (especially Byzantines)
-city stability penalty is now applied for cities past the 12th city.
-more civs start with appropriate Missionaries.
-more UHVs added, please test them, especially Bulgaria, Hungary,Kiev, Venice and Norse (the new ones plus there might be some issue with the Bulgarian UHV, but I am not sure).

Please report bugs to the playtesting tread. Add savegame from 4 - 5 turns before the bug (if possible).

So what does everyone think on giving Venezia the mercenaries UP and Genoa a more commercial UP (maybe one that regards overseas trade) ?

We devised the Merchant Republic civic specifically to accommodate Venice and Genoa, one of them should have that one. As for the Mercenaries, both civs would be playing rather offensively so they both could benefit from the Mercenary UP. I don't think it makes much of a difference which war the civics go.

BTW: you can very easily change the UP by editing Assets\Python\RFCEBalance.py file in the RFCEurope folder (if you feel like coding).

@sedna17: when you coded the settler's map you posted excel screenshots with tiles marked 6, 7, 8, 9. What do those correspond to in the actual map array, i.e. what values?

Hey 3Miro,

Yeah, I used single digits to fill in the settler map. I then converted these ranks to typical values found in RFC settler maps via this mapping (yes, blank spots on the spreadsheet go to 20):

0 -> 3
-> 20
1 -> 40
2 -> 60
3 -> 90
4 -> 150
5 -> 200
6 -> 300
7 -> 400
8 -> 500
9 -> 700

This was based on my quick understanding of settler maps described thusly. There is some sort of stability interaction between normal/spawn areas and the particular values chosen for the higher numbers, which I didn't figure out in detail at the time, but might be contributing to problems:

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.

Since so many people asked for it, I disabled stability for now. Here is the new version that you guys can play with. I will keep on working on the stability.

sedna: there seems to be a problem with serfdom, cottaged do not grow at all, not just 50% slower. Do you think it is in the XML or should I look for the problem in Python/C++.

@3Miro

The problem with cottage growth under Serfdom is almost certainly an XML problem -- some of the tags just don't deal with negative values. I'll remove this in the next update to the xml files. At some point we may want to implement a different downside to Serfdom.

Are you sure it is negative and not just a penalty like 50 means 50% less, and 200% means twice as fast?

I am currently more worried for the upside of serfdom. +1 food seems somewhat OP for me, it was actually causing a lot of problems for the stability since stability, the way Rhye had it, depended heavily on food production.

Are you sure it is negative and not just a penalty like 50 means 50% less, and 200% means twice as fast?

I am currently more worried for the upside of serfdom. +1 food seems somewhat OP for me, it was actually causing a lot of problems for the stability since stability, the way Rhye had it, depended heavily on food production.

Why would an excess of food cause instability? In the real world a surplus can be exported which creates more wealth. Why would that cause instability?:confused:

In Rhye's model we take the ratio of food to real population (i.e. population from the demographics screen, in thousands and millions). More food is better, but ... More food means more population and larger cities, food grows linearly with the size of the city, while the actual population grows to a power, creating larges cities and thus causing more instability then adding it. The comes the moment of switching away from Serfdom, which causes Economics stability to drop very sharply.

In general the model works for RFC, even though I disagree with it. There is too much emphasis on growth, strong whip and growth in the middle ages creates a stable empire in more modern times (why should it carry on for so long). Specialists do not produce food and their contributions to the economy are not considered at all (except for the Engineers and Prophets hammers), so specialists are in fact penalized (the only good thing that comes from them is that they lead to somewhat limited city growth and limited penalty for city size). Banks and Markets have no effect on stability (only Custom Houses for the trade routes). I am trying to change that in a meaningful way.

Putting

<iImprovementUpgradeRateModifier>50</iImprovementUpgradeRateModifier>

Makes the Civic screen say it adds +50% to the speed at which towns upgrade, but it doesn't actually. 100 halves the upgrade time (10 turns to 5). 200 reduces it 10 turns to 4 (odd rounding?). All in all, I don't understand this tag.

Note that the +1 food is only from farms, so there is a trade-off with building any cottages. I can see why you're worried though. Anyone have a better suggestion for what serfdom does? I always found just increasing worker speed a bit blah -- historically serfdom should be a pretty common civic type early in our mod, so it should be worthwhile to encourage that.

Stability would be overhauled anyway, so +1 food is fine. I will look into the C++ to see if there if I can find the +/- 50 problem there. I saw the XML and you are absolutely right, so the problem is not there.

. Anyone have a better suggestion for what serfdom does? I always found just increasing worker speed a bit blah -- historically serfdom should be a pretty common civic type early in our mod, so it should be worthwhile to encourage that.

Increase in military production, decrease in food production? Historically I think it would lead to bigger armies, smaller cities, and fewer specialists. The bump in food production for cities from such a system troubles me.

Increase in military production, decrease in food production? Historically I think it would lead to bigger armies, smaller cities, and fewer specialists. The bump in food production for cities from such a system troubles me.

Initially I thought your proposal was crazy, but upon reflection you may be right. That is, you're probably correct that our current food bonus for serfdom would just lead to (historically inappropriate) specialists, and furthermore that under a system of serfdom we shouldn't have huge cities growing up.

I'm less certain about increasing military production. What did you have in mind as the rational behind this?

Initially I thought your proposal was crazy, but upon reflection you may be right. That is, you're probably correct that our current food bonus for serfdom would just lead to (historically inappropriate) specialists, and furthermore that under a system of serfdom we shouldn't have huge cities growing up.

I'm less certain about increasing military production. What did you have in mind as the rational behind this?


The military production thing seems like it would be tied to the massive peasant armies fielded in serfdoms such as Poland, although that's a little later than the early serfdom that we've got available.




I'm not crazy about the whip feature with the slavery civic in ordinary RFC, as powerful as it can be - but if any civic we've got simulates it, it would be serfdom. Do we want to consider making whipping possible under serfdom, with some severe happiness penalties involved?

The military production thing seems like it would be tied to the massive peasant armies fielded in serfdoms such as Poland, although that's a little later than the early serfdom that we've got available.




I'm not crazy about the whip feature with the slavery civic in ordinary RFC, as powerful as it can be - but if any civic we've got simulates it, it would be serfdom. Do we want to consider making whipping possible under serfdom, with some severe happiness penalties involved?

I agree with you about the whip which I regard as pretty much an exploit. I'd rather see some other mechanism to boost production like giving a hammer bonus with serfdom rather than a food one. But if we can't find one, I'd just leave it as it is.

On starting assets (techs, units, buildings) for new civs spawning:
I think before starting we should group civs in different "eras", and define general rules for each era, then proceed to examine each case in detail. I'm gonna edit this post with a proposed grouping for review by everyone.

starting civs (500-600):
Burgundy, Byzantium, France
first group (600-700):
Arabia, Bulgaria
second group (700-800):
Cordoba, Spain, Norse, Papacy, Venice
third group (800-900):
Kiev, Hungary, Germany, Poland
fourth group (900-1100):
Moscow, Genoa, England
fifth group (1100-1300):
Portugal, Austria
sixth group (1300-1500):
Ottomans
seventh group (1500):
Sweden, Netherlands

Serfdom: I would increase health and +1 gold per aristocrat specialist (which IMO would be more suitable than scientists in the middle age).
I noticed a dangerous tendency to propose bonus+penalty for civics. I think this is a wrong approach because it kills the strategic value of adopting a civic. When you adopt a civic you are discarding 3+ other civics, this is the strategic element and the penalty is not being able to use the boni from other civics. Now, there can be some civics here and there with bonus+penalty, for balance reasons, but I think they should be limited not the general rule; plus the bonus should always be much higher than the penalty. I already mentioned how in the Merchant Republic civic the penalties are so high to shade the boni, if all civics were like this the choice I'd make would be in what civic gives the best combination of boni/penalties rather than what civic gives the bonus I need most now.

Merchant Republic has penalties, but +25% Gold and Science is a huge bonus, well worth the penalty. In either case, specifics should probably wait a little, until we have tested the thing a little more.

I managed to do the first Cordoban UHV, just beeline to Feudalism (serfdom) and Divine Right (Divine Monarchy) from the very beginning and with enough workers I got Cordoba to size 16 (I think Byzantines had a city of size 14 so I won by a good margin). I even did that with a test version of a new stability model (especially Economically), More work is needed, but so far nations are not collapsing left and right.

Merchant Republic has penalties, but +25% Gold and Science is a huge bonus, well worth the penalty. In either case, specifics should probably wait a little, until we have tested the thing a little more.

I managed to do the first Cordoban UHV, just beeline to Feudalism (serfdom) and Divine Right (Divine Monarchy) from the very beginning and with enough workers I got Cordoba to size 16 (I think Byzantines had a city of size 14 so I won by a good margin). I even did that with a test version of a new stability model (especially Economically), More work is needed, but so far nations are not collapsing left and right.

Interesting test. I think my problem was I had Cordoba sandwiched between Sevilla, Granada and Malaga (more for geographic accuracy than anything). So not enough tiles to irrigate. I'm glad its doable. I'll have a go at it again.

BTW Check on my update on Burgundy on the test thread. Another UHV problem I'm afraid. Also check your PMs.

On starting assets (techs, units, buildings) for new civs spawning:
I think before starting we should group civs in different "eras", and define general rules for each era, then proceed to examine each case in detail. I'm gonna edit this post with a proposed grouping for review by everyone.

starting civs (500-600):
Burgundy, Byzantium, France
first group (600-700):
Arabia, Bulgaria
second group (700-800):
Cordoba, Spain, Norse, Papacy, Venice
third group (800-900):
Kiev, Hungary, Germany, Poland
fourth group (900-1100):
Moscow, Genoa, England
fifth group (1100-1300):
Portugal, Austria
sixth group (1300-1500):
Ottomans
seventh group (1500):
Sweden, Netherlands

I think we could group civs by both region and time frame to some extent. That is, the two islamic civs should start out with many of the same techs and the two Italian city states will probably have a different flavor of starting techs then their northern brethren.

ancient civs:
Byzantium
starting civs europe(500-700):
Burgundy, France, Bulgaria
Islamic group (600-800):
Arabia, Cordoba
second europe group (700-800):
Spain, Norse, Papacy
Mediterranean (600-900):
Venice,Genoa
third group (800-900):
Kiev, Hungary, Germany, Poland
fourth group (900-1100):
Moscow, England
fifth group (1100-1300):
Portugal, Austria
sixth group (1300-1500):
Ottomans
seventh group (1500):
Sweden, Netherlands

Alright, here's a fully-fleshed out list of starting techs for civs. This is based on the new tech tree (and eras contained therein) which I post here again for ease of reference. I have made only minor changes to the currently implemented civs to reflect changes to the tech tree.

I hope the format of the later civs (base civ list + additional techs) is easy enough to read. Remember the primary focus of this should be historical accuracy at the time a civ rises.

Comments/Criticisms/Suggestions?

Byz:
Calendar
Map_Making
Architecture
Theology
Monasticism
Music
Literature
Classical_Knowledge
Code_of_Laws
Philosophy
Herbal_Medicine
(Erase Drama from currently implemented list)

Franks:
None

Burgundians:
None

Bulgaria:
Theology
Calendar
Map Making
Stirrup
Architecture
Monasticism

Arabs:
Calendar
Mapmaking
Lateen Sail
Theology
Monasticism
Literature
Stirrup
Architecture
Code of Laws
ArabicKnowledge
HerbalMedicine

Cordoba:
Arab techs
+ Engineering

Spain:
Calendar
MapMaking
Architecture
Theology
Monasticism
HerbalMedicine
Stirrup

Norse:
Calendar
Mapmaking
Architecture
Engineering
Manorialism
Vassalage
Civil Service (or move Beserker up in Tech Tree)

Venice:
Calendar
Mapmaking
Lateen Sail
Architecture
Theology
Monasticism
Music
Literature
Herbal Medicine
Manorialism
Vassalage
Code of Laws
Stirrup

Kiev:
Calendar
Architecture
Theology
Monsticism
Manorialism
Vassalage
Feudalism
Stirrup
Farriers

Hungary:
Kiev
+ Art

Germany:
Kiev
+ Art
+ Engineering
+ Machinery

Poland:
Kiev
+ Art
+ Engineering
+ Machinery

Moscow:
Kiev
+ Art
+ Engineering
+ Machinery
+ Blast Furnace
+ Music

Genoa:
Venice
+Vaulted Arches
+Engineering
+Machinery
+Feudalism

England:
All Early Middle Ages
+ Blast Furnace
+ Code of Laws

Portugal:
England
+ Literature
+ Astrolabe

Austria:
England
+ Gothic Architecture
+ Chivalry

Ottoman Turks:
All Early Middle Ages
All High Middle Ages
Gunpowder

Sweeden:
All Early
All High
All Late
- Arabic Knowledge
- Public Works
- Chemistry

Netherlands:
All Early
All High
All Late
-Arabic Knowledge

A very complete list. I'd go with that for now. There's no point trying to agree unanimously on everything. Better to implement the tech tree and the starting techs as they are. Any problems should reveal themselves in play-testing. Well done.:goodjob:

BTW I would have the Beserker enabled by Engineering and make the Norse research Civil Service.

Looks good to me, we can tweak it later for gameplay purposes. Sedna it would be easier to code if the techs in the XML file are arranged by Eras, i.e. so I can load all Early or High techs with a simple loop.

PS do you think you can have the files today, if not I will post a new test version without it.

Good work Sedna, that's exactly what I meant !
Next to do is units and buildings, both tied to techs. I don't have time to work on them or on anything before weekend though :(

I'll have an upload later today -- by 8 pm Eastern time at least. I'll re-arrange the tech xml file as you suggest.

Good work Sedna, that's exactly what I meant !
Next to do is units and buildings, both tied to techs. I don't have time to work on them or on anything before weekend though :(

I think you'll find that most units and buildings have been decided overall but of course starting units and starting buildings have yet to be decided. The early civs won't start with many buildings but the units they start with will depend a lot on UHVs and balance issues. I've got some ideas for some of them which I might post as well. Meanwhile the map and placement of resources needs to be finalized next, I think. st. lucifers working on that.:)

Okay, new upload with description is in the RFCE files thread.

Problem: when I use your files, the game crashes on load. Works without the new files. Did you forget to include some file. Also, serfdom should be improvements: -50, however, Firaxis had a bug in the code which I fixed (sort of fixed).

EDIT: yep: CivIVArtDefines_Unit for the ART_DEF_UNIT_ARQUEBUSIER tag. Changed it to Tercio for now.

Sorry for that mistake. Your fix is okay for now, but I've also uploaded the new art_defines file to the files thread. The problem was that I updated that file a while ago before starting the tech stuff and then when I was searching for updated files based on modification date I missed it.

Here's what the new Tercio should look like BTW. It's a combo unit with a pike and a cool-looking musket-guy. It won't work great for people who play with single units.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=194181&stc=1&d=1226614044

Fixed now. Sedna, some of the units (such as warriors) cannot enter jungles. All units should be able to enter jungles, if you could fix that in some future version. Actually we could argue that jungles should be passable except for mounted units.

Next version is out:
- Stability is back, the Economy system has been changed and the Expansion penalties severely reduced. The AI seems to be handling it well enough. For the Economy: emphasize production, food and commerce, work only improved tiles and build Marketplaces and Forges as soon as you can. As of right now, it might be a bit too easy.
- Hungarian Stronghold now damages units within the city's Fat Cross (not documented, however).
- Tech Tree is updated (thanks to sedna), as well as some of the graphics.
- Civs now have tentative starting techs, those are still under consideration.
- Fixed the bug with cottages not growing under serfdom. Still doesn't display the right growth times, but they do grow as supposed to.
- Fixed various UHVs that were not registering.
- Nerfed the Arabian UP, now only State Religion and Temples spread to conquered cities.
- Fixed a bug with the Burgundian UP, now they get only bonus in culture, not culture and gold.
- Fixed a bug with the Spanish UP, now espionage bonus points show up in each city.
- The Viking UHV (as is) requires that all water tiles, including the Russian lakes are revealed. Should it remain this way or should it be changed to something else?
- Religion spread should be better now, countries tend to keep their corresponding Religions. Catholicism spreads better.
- Fixed the bug with the independents starting at war with everyone. Now they start at peace.

To help balance stability:
could you guys send me some screenshots of what a typical city looks like in your games. Cities of size 3, 6, 8-9, 12-13 above 15. I am trying to improve the Economical stability problem.

Perhaps the third Norse condition should be reveal all Ocean tiles?

The Norse really didn't have a history of exploring Russia or Arabia (where the other water is)

Perhaps the third Norse condition should be reveal all Ocean tiles?

The Norse really didn't have a history of exploring Russia or Arabia (where the other water is)

I agree that it should only be ocean tiles. Though I should correct you about the Norse. They did extensively explore the river systems of Russia and founded many cities like Novgorod and Kiev. They traded furs and slaves regularly with Byzantium and Arab traders on the Black Sea. The Kievan Rus, of course were a Norse tribe from Sweden and Finland who settled much of Russia and the Ukraine. Sorry about that.:)

I agree that it should only be ocean tiles. Though I should correct you about the Norse. They did extensively explore the river systems of Russia and founded many cities like Novgorod and Kiev. They traded furs and slaves regularly with Byzantium and Arab traders on the Black Sea. The Kievan Rus, of course were a Norse tribe from Sweden and Finland who settled much of Russia and the Ukraine. Sorry about that.:)

Yeah, I know it's a challenge - but I think that certainly the Black Sea should be covered, if not necessarily the Red. Actually, the Black Sea issue was why I proposed it as a UHV condition; it requires them to either spread that far south (highly unlikely), or beg/conquer their way through Constantinople (difficult).

Perhaps if we made the requirement to reveal all ocean tiles, I could modify the map so that the center of the Black Sea is ocean, while the Red Sea is all coastal. That would keep the spirit of the requirement without making the UHV condition impossible.

Moscow UHV clarification: no foreign culture in cities? What if they conquer a city, that means that they automatically loose the condition. In RFC only Japan has similar condition, but they are on an island and not very hard to defend in that matter. Besides Russians are very diverse, there is plenty of foreign culture in Moscow. What if we set an area (what the land loyal to Moscow was in 1700AD) and ask that Moscow has cultural control over every plot?

New version is out:

Norse UHV now requires only ocean tiles to be explored. We should add some ocean tiles to the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.

Arabian UP: now temples and state religion spreads to all cities, founded or conquered.

Whenever a religion is founded, the holy shrine is build in the holy city (Great Prophets are no longer needed for that function).

Many UHVs added, those would be buggy, so please report problems.

what do you think of giving a chance to core cities of a collapsing civ to become part of a civ that has royal marriage with the collapsing civ at the moment of collapse, with preference given to the nearest civ ?

what do you think of giving a chance to core cities of a collapsing civ to become part of a civ that has royal marriage with the collapsing civ at the moment of collapse, with preference given to the nearest civ ?

hm, it may be hard to code. What of the collapsing civ is at war with the civ by marriage and collapsed because of the war. Also, you don't want to get stuck with a bunch of cities on the side of Europe just because of the marriage (think of your own stability). I will think about that. Maybe converting some culture in the collapsing cities, making them more likely to flip to the neighbor. I will think about it.

I really admire how far u guys have come, but i was wondering how close u guys are coming to releasing it?:)

I really admire how far u guys have come, but i was wondering how close u guys are coming to releasing it?:)

We will have a full and completely working version by tomorrow, 7 AM GMT. Check back here then for a complete, fully playtested and balanced, and error-free version.



If it mysteriously fails to materialize, perhaps you could help playtest the current, incomplete version, which might help move its release up earlier?

New version is out. Maybe not fully balanced and bug free.

-Fixed the Hungarian UHVs, now the Free Religion registers and the control territory only counts for Europe.
-Fixed the Genoa starting Tech bug.
-Added workers for most civs (except Byzantium).
-Added diplomacy bonus to Cordoba and the Arabs, that way they are more likely to OB and trade, otherwise with everyone hating them they will have very low Economical Stability.
-I believe noone can vassalize within 20 turns of spawn. Report if nations still vassalize too easily.

hm, it may be hard to code. What of the collapsing civ is at war with the civ by marriage and collapsed because of the war. Also, you don't want to get stuck with a bunch of cities on the side of Europe just because of the marriage (think of your own stability). I will think about that. Maybe converting some culture in the collapsing cities, making them more likely to flip to the neighbor. I will think about it.

yep, I thought it wouldn't be easy, so it should be quite low priority. If possible, the player should be asked if he wants those cities (either all or nothing, though).

What civics are best to be used together? My civics category never seems to get higher than 2 stars unless i stick with Electorate, Serfdom and Vassalage.

What civics are best to be used together? My civics category never seems to get higher than 2 stars unless i stick with Electorate, Serfdom and Vassalage.

Electorate, Feudal Law, Serfdom, Manorial System. Don't bother with Vassalage unless you've got one. I try to go to Divine Monarchy, Free Peasantry, Merchant Republic and Imperialism when I can if my cities are far from my capitol, like in my present game where I'm playing as Venice.

Civic stability depends on two things, the combos (i.e. Religious Freedom is bad with Religious Law, while Feudal Law is good with Vassalage) (jessiecat means Viceroy).

Civics depend on things like number of cities, if you have Bureaucracy, you don't want too many cities. If you have Organized Religion or Theocracy, then you get penalty for non-state religions in your empire.

Finally civics depend in the number of Anarchy turns that you have had. Avoid civic switch unless necessary.

Thanks

I feel in the later stages of the game there is little to build. Are there plans for more buildings?

Civic stability depends on two things, the combos (i.e. Religious Freedom is bad with Religious Law, while Feudal Law is good with Vassalage) (jessiecat means Viceroy).

Civics depend on things like number of cities, if you have Bureaucracy, you don't want too many cities. If you have Organized Religion or Theocracy, then you get penalty for non-state religions in your empire.

Finally civics depend in the number of Anarchy turns that you have had. Avoid civic switch unless necessary.


Sorry to correct you. Viceroy is a difficulty level not a civic. I do mean Vassalage which I don't usually use unless I have one or more vassals. I switched from Subjugation straight to Imperialism in the case of Venice, which I'm playing now.

:lol: In RFC there is difficulty level Viceroy and civic Viceroyalty. In RFCE, there a difficulty Viceroy and civic Vassalage. I guess sedna made the change and it is a good change, just I never payed attention to it.

Oh, yeah, that's 'cause we lost the old "Vassalage" civic, which became Feudal Law. Um... it's a little confusing really.

I think something like Kingdom of Naples would do. Starting year 1285,
UHV:
1. Control Sicily, Southern Italy and Sardinia by 1400.
2. Control Rome, Venice and Piedmont by 1800.
3. Build x-number Catholic buildings.

Not sure about UB or UU yet, can be decided later.

Thanks for your suggestion. While I agree that the Kingdom of Naples would fill the gap south of Rome and could provide some interesting conflicts it comes pretty late in this mod considering it finishes in 1800AD. It was discussed some time ago but was rejected for partly for that reason and also because it was ruled by the Spanish Hapsburgs for a long period. We won't be adding any new civs to the 20 we've got for a long while yet. There's just too much work left to get this mod up and running. However thanks again for your interest. If you are following our discussions on these threads please feel free to comment on anything or make suggestions. You are very welcome.:)

Spies? tech trading?

Will we have plagues in the mod to represent the black death? Also, it would be good to see peasant revolts represented in this mod, as they were frequent during this time period. They could be represented in events perhaps, spawning x number of units on your borders, possibly if you fail to meet certain happyness requirements.

Plagues: sure. Revolts:don't know.

Plagues: sure. Revolts:don't know.


It would certainly make sense to have a peasant uprising event that was relatively common - it would give us another event besides forest fires. :D



On Naples - as Jessiecat said, we had a long discussion about whether or not to include them as a civ, and there was some thought of putting it in as the Norman kingdom of Sicily - but we've got our finalized civ list, and changing it isn't really on the table. There will be an independent Naples and probably Palermo or Siracusa - many of the current empty spaces on the map which have historically had cities won't be empty.

It would be nice if the various units upgraded when a new unit was available.

It would be nice if the various units upgraded when a new unit was available.

Are you talking about the RFC German UP?

well, no.

Playing as Cordoba (going for UHV, first 2 conditions worked perfectly) i have Berber horsemen that should in theory be allowed to be upgraded to Knights and so forth, but the upgrade string is not available.

Likewise, Bows (long or cross) cant upgrade to Gunpowder units and Pikemen cant be upgraded to Swiss Pikeman.

Hm, that is sedna's XML issue. Something for his to do list.

New test version is out. Someone needs to work on the starting buildings in the newly founded cities. Make a list for every nation (i.e. Norse: Pop 2: Granary + Marketplace)

New test version is out. Someone needs to work on the starting buildings in the newly founded cities. Make a list for every nation (i.e. Norse: Pop 2: Granary + Marketplace)

Will do. I'm still concerned about Burgundy and the Franks. They are really sucking it up relative to the other civs. I don't know how to fix that...

Here are my thoughts. Most of it is a natural progression with a little bit of variety based on location and historical temperament. However, I did try to do just the slightest bit of gameplay balancing.

Case in point, I suggest that Burgundy and the Franks start with population 2 (at least in the next round of edits) because they desperately desperately need some sort of boost. I have never seen a game where they didn't do one of the following: A) cling to bottom of the scoreboard, so painfully far behind in technology that a determined civ could just bulldoze them with more advanced units or B) collapse. My Middle Ages history is weak, but I remember the Franks being one of the big powers. Charlemagne and such...

I didn't give the Byzantines or Arabs anything because they don't need the help at this point.

EDITED TO INCLUDE JESSIECAT'S INPUT

Burgundy 500 AD
Population 2
Granary

Franks 500 AD
Population 2
Granary

Byzantines 500 AD

Arabs 632 AD

Bulgaria 640 AD
Population 1
Granary

Cordoba 700 AD
Population 1
Granary

Spain 720 AD
Population 1
Granary

Norse 770 AD
Population 2
Granary
Barracks
Harbor

Venezia 800 AD
Population 2
Granary
Harbor

Kievan Rus 880 AD
Population 2
Granary
Barracks
Stable

Hungary 900 AD
Population 2
Granary
Barracks
Stable

Germany 939 AD
Population 2
Granary
Barracks
Archery Range

Polish 970 AD
Population 2
Granary
Barracks
Archery Range

Moscow 999 AD
Population 3
Granary
Barracks
Archery Range
Courthouse

Genoa 1020 AD
Population 3
Granary
Barracks
Archery Range
Marketplace
Harbor

English 1060 AD
Population 3
Granary
Barracks
Archery Range
Marketplace
Harbor

Portugal 1101 AD
Population 3
Granary
Barracks
Archery Range
Marketplace
Harbor
Library

Austria 1161 AD
Population 3
Granary
Barracks
Archery Range
Forge
Courthouse
Library
Marketplace

Turkey 1299 AD
Population 3
Granary
Barracks
Archery Range
Forge
Courthouse
Library
Marketplace

Sweden 1500 AD
Population 4
Granary
Barracks
Forge
Lighthouse
Marketplace
Library
Harbor

Netherlands 1580 AD
Population 4
Granary
Barracks
Forge
Lighthouse
Marketplace
Library
Theatre
Harbor

A final note on technologies. By the time the Dutch spawn in 1500, Arabia had all the technologies in the tree except Medicine, Industrial Revolution, and Machine Tools. I'm not sure whether the tech tree is planning to be expanded, but it's worth noting that they're basically through the entire thing in 1500. Is there currently a research penalty for civ size, as in the original Rhye's, because that might take care of the current balance issues.

I'm assuming that technology is still something that needs to be tuned up, presumably in later versions after more of the fundamentals have been taken care of. But in any case, I noticed that the Swedes and Dutch currently lack starting technologies. Here is my suggestion for those, based on contemporary civ's technologies based on the most recent version.

Swedish Technologies:
Calendar
Architecture
Theology
Manorialism
Stirrup
Engineering
Art
Monasticism
Herbal Medicine
Vassalage
Map Making
Machinery
Vaulted Arches
Music
Feudalism
Farriers
Astrolabe
Blast Furnace
Siege Engines
Gothic Architecture
Literature
Code of Laws
Lateen Sails
Plate Armor
Monument Building
Classical Knowledge
Alchemy
Civil Service
Chivalry
Clockmaking
Philosophy
Education
Guilds
Military Tradition
Optics
Replaceable Parts
Patronage
Gunpowder
Banking
Shipbuilding
Drama
Divine Right
Paper
Professional Army
Printing Press
Astronomy
Matchlock

Dutch Technologies:
Calendar
Architecture
Theology
Manorialism
Stirrup
Engineering
Art
Monasticism
Herbal Medicine
Vassalage
Map Making
Machinery
Vaulted Arches
Music
Feudalism
Farriers
Astrolabe
Blast Furnace
Siege Engines
Gothic Architecture
Literature
Code of Laws
Lateen Sails
Plate Armor
Monument Building
Classical Knowledge
Alchemy
Civil Service
Chivalry
Clockmaking
Philosophy
Education
Guilds
Military Tradition
Optics
Replaceable Parts
Patronage
Gunpowder
Banking
Shipbuilding
Drama
Divine Right
Paper
Professional Army
Printing Press
Economics
Astronomy
Constitution
Liberalism
Matchlock

A very good list. I would give the Byzantines and the Arabs a granary. I don't think I'd give Moscow a forge before some of the later civs though. And I think you have to give Austria and the Ottomans a market. Other than that I'd go with this for now.

A very good list. I would give the Byzantines and the Arabs a granary. I don't think I'd give Moscow a forge before some of the later civs though. And I think you have to give Austria and the Ottomans a market. Other than that I'd go with this for now.

I'm good for the Austria and Ottoman market. Sounds good to me.

I gave Moscow a forge because they're still getting out-settled by Poland and Kiev Rus. In most of the runs I've had - and at this point it's quite a few - Moscow has been pretty low down on the list. I think giving them the Forge might help them keep up with their neighbors. That's my perspective from a purely balance perspective.

And on that same note, I also don't think you should give the Byzantines and Arabs a Granary. The Arabs already beat out all the other civs by a massive margin. They actually complete the tech tree less than 30 turns after the Dutch spawn. Anything that strengthens that civilization, especially since they spam-colonize North Africa - really the only civ that goes there at all at this point - is probably a bad idea at this point. Just from a balance standpoint, lets see what happens with these improvements to the other civs before we improve such a dominant power - even by such a small margin.

:D

I'm good for the Austria and Ottoman market. Sounds good to me.

I gave Moscow a forge because they're still getting out-settled by Poland and Kiev Rus. In most of the runs I've had - and at this point it's quite a few - Moscow has been pretty low down on the list. I think giving them the Forge might help them keep up with their neighbors. That's my perspective from a purely balance perspective.

And on that same note, I also don't think you should give the Byzantines and Arabs a Granary. The Arabs already beat out all the other civs by a massive margin. They actually complete the tech tree less than 30 turns after the Dutch spawn. Anything that strengthens that civilization, especially since they spam-colonize North Africa - really the only civ that goes there at all at this point - is probably a bad idea at this point. Just from a balance standpoint, lets see what happens with these improvements to the other civs before we improve such a dominant power - even by such a small margin.

:D

OK. I'll go along with not giving the Byzantines and Arabs a granary for the reasons you stated. But I think there's probably a better way to compensate Moscow than a forge. I'd vote for an extra settler and a couple of units and workers. That way they'd grow quicker from more starting cities rather than have a production boost. The other factor not decided is independents of which there will several near Moscow's spawn area, at least one of which can be made to flip to them. I'm working on the list now and will be able to tell you more later today.

On thing that would help many civs would be a movement 2 scout. If Moscow sees more "good" tiles, it would build more settlers. Also, more resources in the region.

Are you sure the Dutch don't start with techs on the current version. They are supposed to.

On thing that would help many civs would be a movement 2 scout. If Moscow sees more "good" tiles, it would build more settlers. Also, more resources in the region.

Are you sure the Dutch don't start with techs on the current version. They are supposed to.

A question for you on the indys. How far away from a spawning civ should an indy be so it doesn't flip? I think 3 tiles diagonally should be far enough away, don't you? Right now I've got Vladimir 3 tiles due east, so it would probably flip. I've put Tver 3 tiles diagonally NW and Smolensk 3 tiles diagonally SW of the start so their BFS's don't overlap. Do you think they might flip too?
Also, if we have Beograd as an indy, then the Hungary start would have to move at least 4 tiles north to avoid the flip wouldn't it?

Do not look at distance, look at core areas. If a city is in a nations core, then the city flips. Otherwise it does not. Technically a city could be right next to the spawn area of a nation and not flip. It all depends on the core areas.

Another thought, I remember you had a list of Plagues. We were considering three, Black Death of 1340 and what were the other two?

Arabia clearly needs to be turned down, as they built the forbidden palace in 1077 in my current game.

Also, I agree with sentiments previously stated that France and Burgundy always seems to collapse, or if they remain stable are non-entities.

I also have found that the Byz spend most of games unstable or collapsing, yet never collapse completely.

Another thought, I remember you had a list of Plagues. We were considering three, Black Death of 1340 and what were the other two?

What we had was the 1. Black Death, 1340-1370, 2. The Great Plague, 1650-1670, and the 3. The Smallpox Epidemic of 1740-1750.

Also, I just studied the core areas and according to the list I've done so far, the following cities would flip.

Spain - La Corunna and Pamplona
Cordoba - Valencia, Tangier and maybe Toledo or Tlemcen
England - Bristol and York
France - Caen and Nantes
Norse - Tonsberg and maybe Stavanger
Venice - maybe Graz or Milano
Hungary - Beograd
Kiev - maybe Kherson (if it hasn't been flipped by Bulgaria)
Russia - Vladimir, Tver and Smolensk
Poland - Gdansk
Genoa - Ajaccio
Austria - Graz
Netherlands -maybe Bremen
Sweden - maybe Tonsberg

Could some of these be prevented from flipping if they were barb cities, ie. Tlemcen, Pamplona, Stavanger, Ajaccio etc.?

Arabia clearly needs to be turned down, as they built the forbidden palace in 1077 in my current game.

Also, I agree with sentiments previously stated that France and Burgundy always seems to collapse, or if they remain stable are non-entities.

I also have found that the Byz spend most of games unstable or collapsing, yet never collapse completely.

- Will nerf Arabia.
- Will consider the France - Burgundy problem
- Check the Byz UP

@jessiecat: Everything in the Core flips, it doesn't matter if it is Indep, Barb or belongs to another nation (think of France and Rome in RFC). Also, did you get the post about the plague dates?

- Will nerf Arabia.
- Will consider the France - Burgundy problem
- Check the Byz UP

@jessiecat: Everything in the Core flips, it doesn't matter if it is Indep, Barb or belongs to another nation (think of France and Rome in RFC). Also, did you get the post about the plague dates?

See previous post.;)

Sorry 'bout that.

I wonder if the third is not too late. The turns for the plagues are 247, 375 and 440. Most people would never reach the last one. I wish we had another one around turn 150, would work better in terms of gameplay (besides larger empires like Arabia and Byzantium get hit worse by the plague and everyone says they need to be nerfed). Was everyone healthy around 1050 - 1100AD?

What we had was the 1. Black Death, 1340-1370, 2. The Great Plague, 1650-1670, and the 3. The Smallpox Epidemic of 1740-1750.

Also, I just studied the core areas and according to the list I've done so far, the following cities would flip.

Spain - La Corunna and Pamplona
Cordoba - Valencia, Tangier and maybe Toledo or Tlemcen
England - Bristol and York
France - Caen and Nantes
Norse - Tonsberg and maybe Stavanger
Venice - maybe Graz or Milano
Hungary - Beograd
Kiev - maybe Kherson (if it hasn't been flipped by Bulgaria)
Russia - Vladimir, Tver and Smolensk
Poland - Gdansk
Genoa - Ajaccio
Austria - Graz
Netherlands -maybe Bremen
Sweden - maybe Tonsberg

Could some of these be prevented from flipping if they were barb cities, ie. Tlemcen, Pamplona, Stavanger, Ajaccio etc.?

Thoughts on the list:
-I'd rather see Cordoba flip Tlemcen and have to go after Toledo, but it might be best to have them only flip two cities.
-England's supposed to have to conquer York, but is supposed to flip Caen to engender conflict with France. France is supposed to flip stuff further south - I don't think that Nantes is old enough to be flipped in the French spawn (ed. never mind, 70 BC is old enough - I just didn't think it was a major city until late). Normandy should be desirable to the French but maybe not in the core area.
-The Norse are supposed to flip Tonsberg, and there was talk of giving them a city in Scania, but a 3-city start is probably a bit too powerful given their early date. I don't think we need Stavanger as an early independent.
-If Venice flips any city, it should be one of the ones on the Adriatic, probably Spalato. Graz should be in the Austrian core area (although Venice should want it), and Milano should be a strong independent attractive to both Venice and Genoa (as should Florence and Pisa).
-Genoa should flip Corsica, but I don't think Ajacco is important enough to include as an independent.
-Sweden shouldn't flip Tonsberg, or anything in Scania. The Swedish spawn covers most of Sweden proper, with the exception of the two bottom rows and the westernmost column. If there are any Norse cities in the area, they'll flip. I believe Sweden also flips the Finnish coast, so we might consider giving them a small city there.
-I think the Dutch spawn area should be fairly limited, but they'll have a pretty strong base. If they want to go out and conquer Bremen, they should have no trouble doing it, but I don't think it should be in the Dutch core.

Cores do not (and should not) overlap. Tonsberg cannot be simultaneously in both Norse and Swedish flip zones.

I think its best to drop Tlemcen but allow Cordoba to flip Tangier. Toledo is just on the edge of the core area so it might not flip but Valencia will flip. So if they have to conquer Toledo that's fine.
La Corunna and Pamplona will definitely flip to Spain.

Nantes and Caen are in the core area too so what should we do about them?
York and Bristol are also in the core area.

I'll drop Stavanger and Tonsberg will definitely flip to the Norse.
Bremen might flip to the Dutch as its on the edge of the core area.
I've included Abo on the Finnish coast so it'll probably flip to Sweden.
Milano would probably flip to Venice.
I've included Calaris, Napoli and Cattania as indies but do you want anything at all in Corsica?

Graz is on the edge so it might not flip till Austria spawns.
I've included Ragusa as an indy but nothing else on the Adriatic.
What to do about Beograd? The Hungary start really has to move.

Kherson lies just outside the Kiev and Bulgaria core areas so that's up for grabs.
Gdansk would flip to Poland.
I've dropped Vladimir but Tver and Smolensk would flip. But Riga, Novgorod,
Vologda and Minsk are far enough away.
I've included 4 barbs in eastern Russia. Rostov, Perm, Samara and Saratov.

I've done the coordinates for the list which I will post as soon as I get the go-ahead from the rest of you.

To change Hungary: give me th new coordinates (x,y). I will move the core and normal areas accordingly.

To change Hungary: give me th new coordinates (x,y). I will move the core and normal areas accordingly.

69/37 which places the Hungary start 5 tiles north of Beograd.

BTW I can't find any early plagues at all so why not drop the 3rd. one and leave it at 2?

Here is the proposed list of independent and barbarian cities by date of spawn and turn number. I've also indicated who they might flip to. Those in bold are barbs. The rest are indies.

Tunis.........................49/57................................500AD (Turn 1)
Alger.........................39/54
Tangier......................24/52 (flips to Cordoba)
La Corunna.................26/34 (flips to Spain)
Toledo.......................27/42
Valencia.....................34/46 (flips to Cordoba)
Barcino.......................39/43
Bordeaux.....................37/35
Toulouse.....................39/38
Tours..........................41/31 (slips to France)
Marseilles....................45/41
Lyon...........................46/37 (flips to Burgundy)
Nantes........................37/29 (flips to France)
Milano.........................53/37 (flips to Venice)
Firenze........................54/43 (flips to Genoa)
Napoli.........................59/50
Cattania......................58/56
Calaris.........................50/51
Graz............................60/37
Ragusa.........................64/46
Beograd........................68/42
Kharkov.........................90/28
Tripoli(B)......................56/68
Marrakesh(B)................18/57
Pamplona(B).................34/39 (flips to Spain)
Caen(B)........................49/46 (flips to France and then to England?)
Kherson(B)....................84/37

Bristol.........................39/20 (flips to England)...........700AD (turn 51)
York............................43/15
Edinburgh.....................42/11
Dublin..........................36/16
Tonsberg......................58/10 (flips to Norse)
Bremen.........................54/22
Lubeck..........................58/21
Leipzig...........................58/25
Breslau...........................62/25
Prague............................60/26

Gdansk.........................67/22(flips to Poland)...............800AD (Turn 76)
Memel..........................70/19
Minsk...........................78/22
Riga.............................72/16
Novgorod......................80/14
Tver.............................85/15 (flips to Moscow)
Smolensk.......................85/21 (flips to Moscow)
Yaroslavl........................92/15 (flips to Moscow)
Vologda.........................89/10
Bolgar............................97/23
Samara(B).....................97/30
Kazan(B).....................97/15

I was wondering is we would have too little plague. The last one would hardly make any difference if it stays or if it goes.

I will change Hungary.

I'm just going to make a general comment about how the balance of power seems to go by the time the Dutch spawn. Some of this might have been said, but my unit recommendations (specifically the number of Settlers) might need to be adjusted in light of city flips.

In descending order:
Arabia is consistently number one, as we've discussed
Cordoba and Bulgaria usually hover at about the same score, vying for second with a significant gab between them and Arabia.
Close behind them is usually Spain, Venice, and Germany.

After that there's a little bit more variability. But it's usually England, Poland, the Norse, Kiev Rus, and Turkey.

At the bottom of the list we have Byzantium, Moscow, Austria, Genoa, Portugal (if it hasn't been swallowed up by Spain, which seems to happen about half the time), and then Sweden and the Netherlands (because the last two don't have starting technologies yet.)

Burgundy and the Franks collapse more than half the time. But if one or both of them is still alive, they are clinging to the bottom of the score - often with a three digit score when every other power has four.


So this raises the question - how will the independent civs change the current list? Will it strengthen powers that really ought to be weakened (or the rest brought up to their level)? I'm concerned that if Spain and Cordoba get several cities from a flip, it might unbalance things further. Maybe this is something that will just need to be playtested - something I'm happy to do - but I wanted to go ahead and voice that concern now.

A few notes, based jessiecat's helpful listing:
If Cordoba has two cities flip to it, I think they should start with one Settler, instead of two because otherwise it will unbalance the region and strengthen the second-strongest civilization. If Spain has one flip and two Settlers, and Cordoba has two flips and one Settler, I think that'll probably be better than letting Cordoba start with potentially four cities.

France needs the flips, so those seem good from balance standpoint.
Norse is good, England is good, Moscow is good.

If Venice has a city flip to it, I think they should only start with one Settler.


Oh, and Jessiecat, and if not Forge for Moscow than what about Courthouse? I agree that a Forge might be too much, that's a good point. But it seems unfair to give Moscow the same starting buildings as Germany, which spawns 50 years earlier, and basically the same buildings (Archery instead of Stable) as Kiev Rus which spawns more than 100 years earlier. Especially since 20 years later Genoa starts with 5 buildings instead of 3 - a substantial improvement. Anyway, I adjusted the list on the previous to include your Marketplace suggestions, but I switched the Forge for a Courthouse. We'll see what you think.

Just a quick note as I'm finally finished editing this list. Cordoba flips Valencia and Tangier. Spain flips La Corunna and Pamplona. Even though Cordoba has first chance to capture Toledo they should get 2 settlers (to found Cordoba and Seville) to 2 (Leon and Burgos?) for Spain but Spain should start with more defensive units (+4 archers?). So Spain might start with less cities but be better defended IMO. That's how I see it anyway

jessiecat: Can I ask if Prague will be incorporated? And Berlin wasn't signaficant city till late middle ages.

Plague will be in the next version. Run to the local Pharmacy to get cough medicine.

Plague will be in the next version. Run to the local Pharmacy to get cough medicine.

Berlin changed to Prague. Anyone with the plague at his command gets my full attention.:worship:

When should we expect to see the next version?

When should we expect to see the next version?

2 min ago.

lol, guess my prescience is not working today!

Just a point of interest, the Winger Hussar (polish UU) is NOT as good as the Knight, which it replaces. The Knight at 25% bonus to Melee, while the Winged Hussar does get 25% against siege while loosing the 25% vs Melee.

Someone has to initiate a todo-list of small fixes so we can keep track more easily. That would include small things, like the unit prerequisite and what is a good UU and what is not. City name changes and map issues (we need a more finalized map first), UHV and UP issues and so on.

Some general comments on the independent cities list:

-Of the Russian barbarian cities added, Perm and Saratov weren't really important cities until the industrial or Soviet era, even if the areas were populated. Samara's fine, but if we're going for another barb city in Russia, I'd vote for Kazan, even if it's at the very edge (or just off) the map.

-As Miro pointed out, Caen can't flip to both France and to England. Let's expand the French core further south, and have Normandy flip to the English upon spawn.

-Burgundy needs a city to flip to them upon spawn, if France gets one. Lyon seems like the most reasonable candidate, although we could also conceivably give them a city closer to the Netherlands - Vlaanderen or Luxembourg.

-Memel or Konigsberg should probably be included on the Baltic coast.

-The German core/spawn should cover a fairly wide swath of central Germany, which should probably include at least one independent. My suggestion would be Leipzig or Heidelburg, but I don't have strong feelings about any of them.

-I vote for Yaroslavl over Rostov for Russian independents. While Rostov is also old, Yarolslavl had more of a history as an independent principality.

-Graz should probably flip to Austria.

-Florence and Pisa should be added to Italy.

We also need to finish the UHVs for the civs that have TBDs.

For instance the English could have a UHV of no foreign culture in the british isles at a certain date.

For an important city in Russia, I vote for independent Bulgar. It was the capital of the "other Bulgaria" or Bulgaria at Volga (founded by two brothers, the two Bulgarias existed completely independently). It was by far the largest thing in the far east region until the second wave of Mongols (actually Bulgar stopped the first wave). They were huge on trade and some historians also call then the Silver Bulgaria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volga_Bulgaria

It is at the edge of the map, but not everything there was barbaric.

The new file (20th) has two maps in it. An "RFC Europe" and a "Copy of RFC Europe." They're different file sizes so I just wanted to point out the discrepancy and confirm that the non-copy is the newest version?

We also need to finish the UHVs for the civs that have TBDs.

For instance the English could have a UHV of no foreign culture in the british isles at a certain date.

All TBD victories involve building colony projects. We need colony projects first. The only exception is the Russian UHV, I did not code it because it is neither historically realistic, nor possible in terms of gameplay. Russia is a very diverse country and there is no way to guard against foreign culture if you are on open land.

The new file (20th) has two maps in it. An "RFC Europe" and a "Copy of RFC Europe." They're different file sizes so I just wanted to point out the discrepancy and confirm that the non-copy is the newest version?

I forgot to delete the copy, it was a backup before I started entering the cities. You can just delete it.

Some general comments on the independent cities list:

-Of the Russian barbarian cities added, Perm and Saratov weren't really important cities until the industrial or Soviet era, even if the areas were populated. Samara's fine, but if we're going for another barb city in Russia, I'd vote for Kazan, even if it's at the very edge (or just off) the map.

-As Miro pointed out, Caen can't flip to both France and to England. Let's expand the French core further south, and have Normandy flip to the English upon spawn.

-Burgundy needs a city to flip to them upon spawn, if France gets one. Lyon seems like the most reasonable candidate, although we could also conceivably give them a city closer to the Netherlands - Vlaanderen or Luxembourg.

-Memel or Konigsberg should probably be included on the Baltic coast.

-The German core/spawn should cover a fairly wide swath of central Germany, which should probably include at least one independent. My suggestion would be Leipzig or Heidelburg, but I don't have strong feelings about any of them.

-I vote for Yaroslavl over Rostov for Russian independents. While Rostov is also old, Yarolslavl had more of a history as an independent principality.

-Graz should probably flip to Austria.

-Florence and Pisa should be added to Italy.

My response to your comments.

I'll look again at barbs in E. Russia. Yaroslav may be a good alt. to Rostov.
If we have Kazan then Bulgar is out as they're only a few miles apart. My vote goes to Kazan.
I considered Leipzig but its very close to Prague. I'll look again. Memel is better than Konigsberg. I'll add that. Also Lyon for Burgundy. Graz will flip to Austria not Venice.
I'll add Firenze but Pisa is much too close to it.
We'll need to change the French core area a lot to prevent Caen flipping to it as its only 4 tiles away from Paris. Ill add Tours so it flips that instead.

Edit. Made some changes above. Hope theres not too many in Northern Germany now.

Tunis.........................49/57................................500AD (Turn 1)
Alger.........................39/54
Tangier......................24/52 (flips to Cordoba)
La Corunna.................26/34 (flips to Spain)
Pamplona...................34/39 (flips to Spain)
Toledo.......................27/42
Valencia.....................34/46 (flips to Cordoba)
Barcino.......................39/43
Bordeaux.....................37/35
Toulouse.....................39/38
Caen...........................49/46 (flips to England
Tours..........................41/31 (flips to France)
Freiburg.......................51/33 (flips to Burgundy)
Marseilles....................45/41
Lyon...........................46/37 (flips to Burgundy)
Nantes........................37/29 (flips to France)
Milano.........................53/37 (flips to Venice)
Firenze........................54/43 (flips to Genoa)
Napoli.........................59/50
Cattania......................57/56
Calaris.........................49/51
Graz............................60/37
Ragusa.........................64/46
Beograd........................68/42
Kharkov.........................90/28
Tripoli(B)......................56/68
Marrakesh(B)................18/57
Kherson(B)....................84/37

Bristol.........................39/20 (flips to England)...........700AD (turn 51)
York............................43/15
Edinburgh.....................42/11
Dublin..........................36/16
Tonsberg......................58/10 (flips to Norse)
Bremen.........................54/22
Lubeck..........................58/21
Leipzig...........................58/25
Breslau...........................62/25
Prague............................60/26

Gdansk.........................67/22(flips to Poland)...............800AD (Turn 76)
Memel..........................70/19
Minsk...........................78/22
Riga.............................72/16
Novgorod......................80/14
Tver.............................85/15 (flips to Moscow)
Smolensk.......................85/21 (flips to Moscow)
Yaroslavl........................92/15 (flips to Moscow)
Vologda.........................89/10
Bolgar(B)......................97/23
Samara(B).....................97/30
Kazan(B).......................97/15

Following your suggestions, here is the revised list as it stands now.

The civs are a lot more even now. I just ran a game as the Dutch to see what the score list would look like in 1580. This time it's a lot closer in score, and Arabia is actually not number one. Much more balanced. On the down side, Spain is only 4 techs away from finishing the tech tree upon Netherlands start.

I'm looking at the buildings. So far so good with almost all civs, but I have noticed some problems with a few:

The Netherlands only started with Barracks, Granary, and Market.
Same thing with Sweden. Could this be because they don't have the technology to have any of the other buildings?

The Polish special unit is the Folwark, which is a unique Granary, and they didn't start with either of them.

I also concur with whoever said there weren't enough buildings to build, from a gameplay perspective. Maybe I'm just researching too slowly though.

The AI also seems to be acting a little bit funny. Moscow AI doesn't expand as much as it should - sometimes doesn't even use the Settlers it starts with. (Maybe the addition of a scout unit would fix that, as someone previously suggested.) Burgundy on the other hand builds lots of units and sends them scouring across the map.

I think Portugal, Genoa, and Austria need bigger city flip areas. I think Genoa needs to get Milano, Portugal's area should extend farther north, and Austria needs a bigger flip area. It was, after all, a giant power in the region and I've never seen a game where it got above the bottom half of the rankings. See the screenshot - no cities flip to Austria, meaning it's totally cramped. I was playing as Poland that game, so a part of me doesn't want my two Polish cities to flip. But at the very least, Graz definitely needs to flip to Austria.

France and Burgundy continue to suck. I don't know why, because they're expanding fine, but I think their technology rate isn't keeping up or something.

My response to your comments.

I'll look again at barbs in E. Russia. Yaroslav may be a good alt. to Rostov.
If we have Kazan then Bulgar is out as they're only a few miles apart. My vote goes to Kazan.
I considered Leipzig but its very close to Prague. I'll look again. Memel is better than Konigsberg. I'll add that. Also Lyon for Burgundy. Graz will flip to Austria not Venice.
I'll add Firenze but Pisa is much too close to it.
We'll need to change the French core area a lot to prevent Caen flipping to it as its only 4 tiles away from Paris. Ill add Tours so it flips that instead.

Edit. Made some changes above. Hope theres not too many in Northern Germany now.


I'll vote for Kazan simply to avoid the confusion that having multiple Bulgar-named things (or a Bulgar away from the Bulgarians) would entail.

If not Leipzig, Heidelberg or Wurttemberg would be fine. Alternately, we could have one of the old German cities that faded in importance - Mainz, Worms, or Trier. All of those are a little close to Burgundy, though - although Trier might be far enough east to pull the Germans to expand in that direction.

How much space does Tours give you, both from Paris and from Nantes?

Pisa and Florence are going to be close, but I believe I modified the map so that there's enough room for both. Pisa will likely fall into Genoa's orbit, while Florence will fall into Venice's - there should be two tiles separating them (a little bit of an inaccuracy, but not an unforgiveable amount - I think history, in this case, is more important than complete geographic accuracy).

I've included Kazan and Bolgar as well as Yaroslavl which will flip too along with Tver and Smolensk.
Managed to fit in Lubeck, Leipzig, Breslau and Prague. That will work if a little crowded.
The others you suggested would definitely flip to Burgundy. I've included Lyons and Freiburg
for them instead
I'll look again at Pisa and Firenze though its pretty cramped.
Tours is 4 tiles east of Nantes but only 3 SW of Paris so it should flip.

Don't put cities on top of each other, leave the players some choice on where to build.

Also, you don't have to put Bolgar just because I proposed it, it just seems appropriate to me to note that not everything in that area was barbaric.

I'm not sure why, but Caen is spawning on Corsica instead of in northern France. Presumably someone has noticed this...

If this idea is still out there, my history degree is crying on the wall if Milan flips to Venice.

A prior version had the location that is now Milan listed Mantua, another rival of Venice, might be better placed as Verona, directly below Lake Garda, one tile south and east. Milan would be a little more accurate and playable 3N and 1E of Genoa (super accurate I think would be 2N and 1E, but that really crowds Genoa and Verona).

It may be best not to have Milan flip at all, let the players in the area fight over it, especially if Florence/Pisa is going to Genoa. I'd recommend against including both, they're far too close to each other. I'd probably lean to Pisa (because it's coastal) going Genoa and if we need another city between it and Rome, maybe Urbino, Orvieto (my first choice) or Perugia, and have it controlled by the future papacy. If we absolutely have to have Florence, maybe push a tile south, leave it independent and give Lucca or that area with settlers to Genoa.

If Venice and Genoa need further beefing, maybe adding settlers on Corsica and Corfu (we have Corfu, right, if not, some other appropriate spot) might do the trick.

Anyway, two cents deposited.

If this idea is still out there, my history degree is crying on the wall if Milan flips to Venice.

A prior version had the location that is now Milan listed Mantua, another rival of Venice, might be better placed as Verona, directly below Lake Garda, one tile south and east. Milan would be a little more accurate and playable 3N and 1E of Genoa (super accurate I think would be 2N and 1E, but that really crowds Genoa and Verona).

It may be best not to have Milan flip at all, let the players in the area fight over it, especially if Florence/Pisa is going to Genoa. I'd recommend against including both, they're far too close to each other. I'd probably lean to Pisa (because it's coastal) going Genoa and if we need another city between it and Rome, maybe Urbino, Orvieto (my first choice) or Perugia, and have it controlled by the future papacy. If we absolutely have to have Florence, maybe push a tile south, leave it independent and give Lucca or that area with settlers to Genoa.

If Venice and Genoa need further beefing, maybe adding settlers on Corsica and Corfu (we have Corfu, right, if not, some other appropriate spot) might do the trick.

Anyway, two cents deposited.

Haha, my sympathies to your sobbing history degree. :) Just look at my Genoa screenshot from my earlier post and you'll see why I'm concerned. Genoa gets crowded out and then Venice shoots to the top of the score while Genoa struggles. I like your Corsica settler idea (but for Genoa! Venice doesn't need the help.)

Next version is out on the RFC Europe Files tread.

Now that we have sorted out Iberia, Italy and France, we need to decide on a list for the rest of the map. I've kept this at a bare minimum so the AI is encoraged to settle as much as possible.

500AD...Dublin
............Edinburgh
............York
............Tonsberg (flips to Norse)
............Lubeck
............Leipzig
............Prague
............Breslau

700AD....Gdansk (flips to Poland)
.............Memel
.............Riga
.............Minsk
.............Kharkov
.............Novgorod

800AD....Vologda
.............Smolensk (flips to Moscow)
.............Yaroslavl
.............Tver
.............Khazan (barbarian)
.............Samara (barbarian)

I'd move most of the cities on the list up as follows:

700 AD:
Dublin
Edinburgh
York
Tonsberg (flips to Norse)
Lubeck

800 AD:
Leipzig
Prague
Kharkov
Minsk
Novgorod
Kazan
Samara

900 AD:
Breslau
Gdansk (flips to Poland)
Memel
Riga
Vologda
Smolensk (flips to Moscow)
Tver
Yaroslavl


This way, none of those cities are very developed before their neighboring civs show up. They'll spawn with defenders, and possibly with populations of more than 1 and improvements, so we run a risk by having them develop armies and culture for 20-30 turns before the nearby civs spawn. In the games I've played so far, I've lost units to independents marauding around Bavaria and Switzerland with heavy crossbows, fresh off sacking Venice. The independent civs are likely to be technologically advanced and strong, which means that we should limit the amount of time they'll get to build up.

I do like the list of independent cities, though. No disagreements there.

I agree with your timeline for the reasons stated. Looking again at Poland, it's probably better they start at Kracow for good historical reasons which means that Gdansk (or Danzig) will not flip and remain a strong independent, as it should be. But Breslau would probably flip and be renamed Wroclaw.
As I've shown in the screenshot this will make Poland expand more northwards and eastwards where there is an obvious void. The only addition I might suggest is Lvov (Lemburg) to the east where it could help brake Kievan expansion westward. Apart from that, we are agreed I think.

I agree with your timeline for the reasons stated. Looking again at Poland, it's probably better they start at Kracow for good historical reasons which means that Gdansk (or Danzig) will not flip and remain a strong independent, as it should be. But Breslau would probably flip and be renamed Wroclaw.
As I've shown in the screenshot this will make Poland expand more northwards and eastwards where there is an obvious void. The only addition I might suggest is Lvov (Lemburg) to the east where it could help brake Kievan expansion westward. Apart from that, we are agreed I think.

Yeah, I like that solution.

One other thought on independents and the France/England problem:

What if we have Calais spawn (although France typically builds Amiens a few tiles north of Paris) in England's flip zone/core area? This doesn't require increasing the size of the English core area very much, or make it awkwardly shaped; it gives them a city which was frequently English, and it gives them something to fight about. If it shows up in 900 AD, it'll be strong enough to hold off an initial French challenge.

I also realize that I forgot to re-add Kherson in my initial list; it should probably be around from the beginning, as Bulgaria often expands in that direction, and should probably flip to Kiev upon spawn.

I agree with your timeline for the reasons stated. Looking again at Poland, it's probably better they start at Kracow for good historical reasons which means that Gdansk (or Danzig) will not flip and remain a strong independent, as it should be. But Breslau would probably flip and be renamed Wroclaw.
As I've shown in the screenshot this will make Poland expand more northwards and eastwards where there is an obvious void. The only addition I might suggest is Lvov (Lemburg) to the east where it could help brake Kievan expansion westward. Apart from that, we are agreed I think.

Yes, everything's right, especially with Kraków as a starting location. I've got only one comment: Breslau/Wrocław shouldn't flip to Poland. The city was Polish only in years 992-1138, after that it was a part of a Silesian Duchy, finally a part of Bohemia (with autonomous status). According to its history it should remain independent.
And what about Lwów/Lviv? Since 1340 it belonged officially to to the Kingdom of Poland and was later one of five Polish main cultural centres. So perhabs Lwów/Lviv could flip to Poland?

Yes, everything's right, especially with Kraków as a starting location. I've got only one comment: Breslau/Wrocław shouldn't flip to Poland. The city was Polish only in years 992-1138, after that it was a part of a Silesian Duchy, finally a part of Bohemia (with autonomous status). According to its history it should remain independent.
And what about Lwów/Lviv? Since 1340 it belonged officially to to the Kingdom of Poland and was later one of five Polish main cultural centres. So perhabs Lwów/Lviv could flip to Poland?

That pulls Polish expansion east, where we'd like to see them go, so it works for me. Objections?

why should Leopolis (Latin name, for neutrality :D ) stop the expansion of Kievans as an indipendent city when it was founded exactly by them ? O_o
I object for it to spawn as indipendent, however if Kievans found it, it should definitely flip.

why should Leopolis (Latin name, for neutrality :D ) stop the expansion of Kievans as an indipendent city when it was founded exactly by them ? O_o
I object for it to spawn as indipendent, however if Kievans found it, it should definitely flip.

Hmm. Didn't realize it was a Kievan city.

Perhaps we should put Warsawa in as the independent which flips, and give Poland a big square core area with Krakow in the SW corner?

Hmm. Didn't realize it was a Kievan city.

Perhaps we should put Warsawa in as the independent which flips, and give Poland a big square core area with Krakow in the SW corner?

Except that a big square core area with Kracow as its centre would seriously hamper Austria's start. A core area starting with Cracow in its SW corner but extending north to Gdansk and east to Lvov would work much better. IMO. The issue of flipping also needs to be addressed. How could (as someone suggested) Krakow flip Lviv(Lvov) when it's 6 tiles away or more? I think my solution, as in the screenshot posted earlier, works better in terms of gameplay.

Except that a big square core area with Kracow as its centre would seriously hamper Austria's start. A core area starting with Cracow in its SW corner but extending north to Gdansk and east to Lvov would work much better. IMO.

Well, that's what I'm proposing. A square with Krakow as the SW corner, Warsaw in the middle, and ending somewhere S of Gdansk and just west of Lvov. We can't have Poland and Austria's core areas overlap, and you're completely correct in noting that centering around Krakow would hurt Austria badly. Fortunately, there's precedent for doing it this way - the English, Portuguese, Spanish, French, Burgundian, and Genoan core areas aren't going to have their capitals in the exact center.

I don't think there's any conflict between our two proposals.

Well, that's what I'm proposing. A square with Krakow as the SW corner, Warsaw in the middle, and ending somewhere S of Gdansk and just west of Lvov. We can't have Poland and Austria's core areas overlap, and you're completely correct in noting that centering around Krakow would hurt Austria badly. Fortunately, there's precedent for doing it this way - the English, Portuguese, Spanish, French, Burgundian, and Genoan core areas aren't going to have their capitals in the exact center.

I don't think there's any conflict between our two proposals.

Ya sorry. Thought you were proposing a square with the start in the centre.
So we are agreed. Lets go with that.

Sicily is of no importance as it is now. At least Al Andalus or Arabia should have the goal to conquer it.

Since we miss a UHV for Genoa and Venice, it would be really nice if they have a UHV that brings them in competition, be it economical or territorial.

Control all cities in Peloponnese in 1400 AD? Just an idea...

Maybe something like "most cities in the Mediterranean coast in XXXX AD"?

What about X amount of gold? That might be for Venice, since I've seen them going for some big wars in Balkans.

What about X amount of gold? That might be for Venice, since I've seen them going for some big wars in Balkans.

Considering their UP that would only be appropriate. However, you can get gold better by turtling rather than expanding or conquering so it wouldn't help in creating tension between them and Genoa. How about the same as the Mali's first UHV? "Be the civ with the most gold in year X"? It wouldn't necessarily require turtling (I figure "gold by date X" would make them do that) or Great Merchant spamming and they could achieve it even if they went to war with Genoa or expanded beyond Venise.

Perhaps our biggest historical omission is the Empire of the Carolingians (or Frankish Empire). I propose we rectify this omission, while at the same time creating more fun tension in early Western Europe, which is currently a bit lacking (all UHVs are late so there's no sense of pressure early on).

The basic end goal is to make the Franks' first UHV be the re-creation of Charlemagne's empire by 844 -- that's 86 turns of play. Ideally, the AI would also often create an empire of nearly this size. This empire would extend to the Pyrenees, down to Rome, east to Bavaria, and north to the southern boundary of Denmark. For the human player, playing the Franks would be comparable to playing Rome in RFC. You start out very powerful, but your goals require you to expand into areas which you will eventually lose. Unlike Rome, France will have two additional late-time goals, so a player will need to survive the resulting instability and re-build a more modest empire.

We can accomplish this goal by boosting the Frankish starting units and/or reducing their costs for new units. At the same time, we would extend their settler and war maps to tell the AI to expand more, particularly to the east. Judicious changes to independent cities in this region (making some of the 800 AD spawns locally weaker?) will help with the expansion.

The major two challenges are:
1) What to do with Burgundy
2) How to ensure a collapse of the AI

Problem 2) is relatively easy. Intense barbarian pressure from the North and East (Norse and Magyars) will commence around 840. Additional instability will result from actual attacks from the Norse (Civ) and Hungarians (Civ), the spawn of Venice (and the Papal State, once included), the instability of holding core Burgundian land, and the eventual rise of Germany.

Problem 1) is harder. If we make the Franks more powerful than Burgundy at the start, won't they just run over Burgundy? That may be fine for the AI, but it would suck for the human playing Burgundy. We can cause the Frankish AI to be less aggressive toward Burgundy so that normally the AI will re-create Charlemagne's empire - Burgundy. Other than that, we could start Burgundy with wall-buliding technology and direct them more towards defense than offense.

The simplest (conceptual) plan is to move Burgundy to a later start date, say around 850 AD where they contribute to the destruction of the Frankish empire by their rise (that is, we solve problem #1 and #2 at the same time). This may be technically a little complicated to implement because they are currently the first civ in the WBS which may mean they have special meaning in unanticipated sections of the code. While the Burgundians certainly existed at their 500 AD start, they also fell rather quickly under Frankish dominion, so doesn't it make sense to postpone their "start"? Another minor problem -- with just two starting civs, a calamity which caused either to collapse before 620 AD would end the game. Still, civs are relatively immune to collapse for some number of turns after their spawn.

What do people think of this idea?

I agree the Carolingian Empire is an important historical fact that we have omittted. If it were easy to code in as an early Frankish UHV condition I'd be all for it. The AI collapse and respawn should be doable too.

But is it any more important than the HRE or the Hapsburg Empire? Both are desirable but difficult to recreate in our mod. And I'm sure there are other historical events which are worthy candidates for inclusion. Once we start saying we "must" have this event or that period, where do we stop? I'm all in favour of historical accuracy and flavour but at what point does it overcomplicate the gameplay for the average player and totally baffle the AI?

I'm much more interested in making what we've got so far as playable as possible. And that means solving the regular crashes that occur on or after 1400, which I believe have only become a problem since we introduced civ respawning into the latest test versions. Perhaps you'd like to examine my latest crashed game which I posted in the playtesting thread a day or two ago? Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks.

The simplest (conceptual) plan is to move Burgundy to a later start date, say around 850 AD where they contribute to the destruction of the Frankish empire by their rise (that is, we solve problem #1 and #2 at the same time). This may be technically a little complicated to implement because they are currently the first civ in the WBS which may mean they have special meaning in unanticipated sections of the code. While the Burgundians certainly existed at their 500 AD start, they also fell rather quickly under Frankish dominion, so doesn't it make sense to postpone their "start"? Another minor problem -- with just two starting civs, a calamity which caused either to collapse before 620 AD would end the game. Still, civs are relatively immune to collapse for some number of turns after their spawn.

What do people think of this idea?

This part of it is easily rectified - we moved the Burgundians way back in history to provide the Franks with some competition, and to keep them from collapsing the French when they spawned (essentially what you're proposing). So, really, our current situation is an artificial construct to make the early game more 'even' - when it might realistically be inhibiting the growth of a large and ultimately fragmented empire.

I have no problem in principle with changing the Burgundian spawn date to its 'real' one.

I do want to think a little more about the Frankish/Roman analogy, and its viability. This seems like it's going to be easy to gameplan but hard to get right, even without the complication of the coding issues that arise from it.

@sedna: A great idea actually. I would totally agree in a Carolingian empire remake, and a later Burgundian spawn. But that means removing one of the current UHVs- I would propose the first one. However, we should make sure that captured area will not remain French, because an over-expanded France would easily takeover Venice, Spain, Germany, Burgundy... making Western Europe an area more boring than Inter:D. So, is a scripted semi-collapse possible?
Screenshot 1 is a map of the Carolingian Empire after the death of Carlo Magno.
Screenshot 2 another map, 50 years later, showing how it was divided after the treaty of Verdun.
Both maps are hand-made, based on online maps.
Proposals: Western part remains Frankian, Central becomes Burgundy, BENELUX, Italy and Massilia become indy, Eastern becomes Germany with earlier spawn date, or indy.
About the HRE proposal, it would be enough if Germans captured the Italian cities (Mailand, Firenz, Rom) at 1000 AD, and then let them re-become indies due to instability.

You can't simply pre-script the collapse. But the progressive spawns of Burgundy, Venice, the Papal State (once added), Germany, etc. combined with barbarian incursions will tear apart the Frankish Empire enough that it is very likely to collapse (as Rome does in the 3000 BC starts of regular RFC) and will certainly be reduced to primarily French territory. Changing the Burgundian spawn date to 850 is hardly an issue gameplay-wise (don't know about coding).

Remember, too, that the Byzantine UP includes not collapsing--so there's no risk of the game losing all playable civs before Arabia spawns even if some weird fluke causes the Franks to collapse early on.

I think the idea is not only meritous, it's really ingenious. It greatly enhances the mods historical accuracy and also provides an interesting and dynamic early game. The early game is currently far too balanced. And consideration should be made that, if this isn't implemented soon, it may become too difficult to implement later. Do it now.

When we tweak stability back to standard levels, that collapse is going to be pretty near impossible to ward off.

We may want to have 2 early UHVs and one late, or one early, one mid-game, and one late.

Another random suggestion:

Crusades simulated by Conquerors Event. Of course tweaked and all, but essentially a way of making the AI move units that far... You could receive it twice or thrice as well! ;)

Thanks for everyone's suggestions re: Charlemagne.


But is it any more important than the HRE or the Hapsburg Empire?

Not necessarily, but the basic game mechanics allow for it in a straightforward way, while accurately representing nature of these other two empires would require much more complicated modding.

That said... properly moving Burgundy to spawn later appears to require a vast amount of work. Perhaps I am being dumb though -- 3Miro figured out how to get the spawning code working in the first place, and may know the tricks. But my impression is that the "do it now or never" moment is long past. Another problem is actually getting the AI to expand reasonably fast.

I will keep toying around with Frankia and Burgundy and see if I can come up with an easy solution that allows for an early Frankish empire, but for now this is on the back-burner.

When we tweak stability back to standard levels, that collapse is going to be pretty near impossible to ward off.

We may want to have 2 early UHVs and one late, or one early, one mid-game, and one late.

I'm all out for one early, one mid-game and one late game UHV for Frankia. A "Rome" is always a nice sight in an RFC, even if it couldn't properly represent itself because of the timeline. :) I'm wondering though, not having play-tested the game at all (I can't do so for two more weeks anyway), will controlling a large land-mass become a problem for France? Conquering as Rome in regular RFC was relatively easy because of Mediterranean - Franks aren't so fortunate. Will creating a land empire become too much of a challenge for the Franks or the player? They'd only have 86 turns or so, after all.

Other than that, I like the sound of a large early game France. However, I can't estimate how much trouble coding that in properly would require. Can anyone with a better understanding of the mod give some thought to this?

This mod looks really awesome. Can't wait to try and play it.

Thanks to whoever are behind this mod!

i think a good idea for the crusades, would be if you have an event that talks about the start of the crusades, then have some troops spawn near the borders of whoever is in control of the 'Holy Land'.;)

I don't know if someone already has proposed this, but the third UHV of the Dutch could be: "Be the richest empire in X-AD". It's just my proposal.

I don't know if someone already has proposed this, but the third UHV of the Dutch could be: "Be the richest empire in X-AD". It's just my proposal.

That sounds good to me. In fact we will be filling in all of the remaining UHV conditions once we add the rest of the wonders, corporations and colonies. Having 3 UHV conditions for all civs would be a welcome addition to our play-testing. More please, sedna 17 and 3Miro.:D

I have an idea for the third UHV of Portugal. Control some islands in the west of the map. (Like Ponta Delgada) In my games they usually build there some cities.

All the omitted 3rd UHVs were initially planned as being colony oriented. At the time when I was coding them there were no colonies present. The only technically undecided UHV was the Russian one, having no foreign culture in their land was simply unreasonable.

For the spawn code: to change the spawn turn of a civ, it should be enough to change tBirth in consts.py. It will work for all late spawners, there may be a problem since Burgundy is a starting civ (particularly if there are some pre-build cities in the WB). Note that this will not change the information when loading the game, it will still say "Burgundy starting 500AD ....." That part of the code is still entirely in C++. (more interface between Python and C++ via RFCEBalance.py)

OK so the main complaint is the frequent crashes. Those will require some serious work and I will get to it once I am back from my vacation. (Jan 8 the earliest).

All the omitted 3rd UHVs were initially planned as being colony oriented. At the time when I was coding them there were no colonies present. The only technically undecided UHV was the Russian one, having no foreign culture in their land was simply unreasonable.


Colonies still aren't in. Partly I think I'm still waiting on suggestions by St. Lucifer, and partly I haven't had time over the holidays (witness the lack of new wonders).


For the spawn code: to change the spawn turn of a civ, it should be enough to change tBirth in consts.py. It will work for all late spawners, there may be a problem since Burgundy is a starting civ (particularly if there are some pre-build cities in the WB). Note that this will not change the information when loading the game, it will still say "Burgundy starting 500AD ....." That part of the code is still entirely in C++. (more interface between Python and C++ via RFCEBalance.py)


I tested, and was able to change later civs' spawn date this way. Burgundy was less successful. For instance, at line 726 of RiseAndFall.py we loop through civs by WBS/array order, starting with the first-civ-to-rise -- though I think there's no real reason not to include all civs in this loops. Is it possible there are other places in the code which assume that WBS order is the same as spawn order?

I have an idea for the third UHV of Portugal. Control some islands in the west of the map. (Like Ponta Delgada) In my games they usually build there some cities.


Thats a really good idea but also if the map is big enough (up to the designers of course) it should be the first european civ to own colonies in west africa (depending how long the coast line is)

It will be a "build 3 colonial projects'' UHV (since the map doesn't support Americas or Australia or anything else kinda like that, colonies are regarded as wonders), when these projects are added.

I tested, and was able to change later civs' spawn date this way. Burgundy was less successful. For instance, at line 726 of RiseAndFall.py we loop through civs by WBS/array order, starting with the first-civ-to-rise -- though I think there's no real reason not to include all civs in this loops. Is it possible there are other places in the code which assume that WBS order is the same as spawn order?

RiseAndFall.py needs to be changes, there are some starting units in couple of functions (towards the end of the file). I don't remember all of the off the top of my head, but they should be easy to find by the pattern (all civs follow the pattern). I will do it if you have trouble.

How are you doing in terms of identifying Bulgarian Great People?

How are you doing in terms of identifying Bulgarian Great People?

We are not at doing great people yet. We just need a list of GP similar to the wonders, covering GP from all civs but keep them generic and available randomly to anyone. In many cases it would be difficult to establish nationality (what was Albert Einstein, American or German?).

We should edit that list at some point, since Sun Tzu is hardly an appropriate GP for RFC Europe.

One hard point: what are the early Great Scientists, especially since science was so closely related to Religion, most of the GS and Great Prophets would overlap.

Boleslav, your contribution is welcome of course.

I would think the main distinction between Great Scientists and Great Prophets would be where their greatest contribution lay, in the theological or the logical/philosophical/pre-scientific. Thomas Aquinas would be a Great Prophet, but Peter Abelard would be a Great Scientist. (This sort of a fine distinction and an easy one to fight over, still.)

Now that colonies are in the mod, how about updating some of the missing UHV's? (like Frankia's and England's) I'm sure those empty UHV spots are there for when colonies are in the mod, and use them for UHVs.

Now that colonies are in the mod, how about updating some of the missing UHV's? (like Frankia's and England's) I'm sure those empty UHV spots are there for when colonies are in the mod, and use them for UHVs.

I guess great minds do think alike. See what I've just posted in the playtesting thread.:D

I am not sure if there are a lot of testers from central-eastern europe but as i am from slovakia and i am quite educated in history of this part of the world as well as russia i found several historical inaccuracies just seeing the initial screen of this mod - the one you choose your civ from.

1. Kievan Rus leader shouldnt be Jurij Dolgorukyj - actually it was him who founded Moskva/Moscow, so if you want to have different kievan and muscovy civs this is not a good choice even if he was a kievan ruler. there are other even more important rulers - you can choose from a wide range - Rurik, Jaroslav Mudry/The Wise, Sviatoslav... I would definitely choose Jaroslav Mudry/The Wise because under his rule Kievan Rus flourished the most. Rurik is also good as the founder of the Rurikovicej dynasty, but he actually ruled from Novgorod, and he was a Variag- a Viking.
2. Hungarian UP - Power of Tolerance - maybe some of you will acuse me of being anti-hungarian as i am a Slovak, but thats not true. I have nothing against modern Hungarians, actually my gf is partly of hungarian descent. But since the middle ages till the XX. century the non-hungarian parts of hungarian monarchy - such as Slovakia or Romania - was under heavy magyarization/hungarization, people were forced to speak and learn hungarian so the power of tolerance is mosty inaccurate. Again i am friends with hungarians today, but during the Hungarian monarchy its politics with the minorities were quite represive.
3. Russian city names - i would be able to extend the russian names to various prominent cities of historical europe, which were never under russian rule, however russians have their own names for them. As an example - Constantinople should become Carigrad/Tsarigrad after conquest by russia. Its an old russian name for the city, or maybe old slavic as it is still used in some proverbs even in my country.
4. Bulgaria - i dont remember exactly but i know the word khan and khanate is used with bulgaria in this mod, im not sure if they had a khanate sometimes in the history, but they definitely hed tsars for the most of history, so its not good to refer to bulghars as khanate - which would relate them to mongols or others steppe nations.

As I said I didnt even start playing so I may have more comments in the future, comments from the point of view of a slovak, central-eastern european, a slav, a russian history student. But if my comments are too late to incorporated in the game or are not very appreciated, just tell me and i will stop disturbing with such long comments :-)

Thanks. But I think you just posted in the other thread, didn't you? It will be replied to. No need to double-post.

I've put a little thought into "corporations". See my suggestions at the wiki page. (http://wikirhye.wikidot.com/rfce-corporations)

Corporations is an awkward name. True corporations like the East/West India company only come late, and we're going to model them as projects rather than corporations for technical reasons. These "corporations" are mostly wealthy religious/military orders or familial associations that crossed country lines and had significant economic impact.

The built-in code allows corporations to:
1) Provide food/production/various money benefits
2) Provide a resource
3) Be required to build a given unit or building

1) and 2) are used in BTS. 3) is not, but is quite appropriate for the military orders. If we do a Knight of St. John's we'll want to change the Portuguese UU.

I've put a little thought into "corporations". See my suggestions at the wiki page. (http://wikirhye.wikidot.com/rfce-corporations)

Corporations is an awkward name. True corporations like the East/West India company only come late, and we're going to model them as projects rather than corporations for technical reasons. These "corporations" are mostly wealthy religious/military orders or familial associations that crossed country lines and had significant economic impact.

The built-in code allows corporations to:
1) Provide food/production/various money benefits
2) Provide a resource
3) Be required to build a given unit or building

1) and 2) are used in BTS. 3) is not, but is quite appropriate for the military orders. If we do a Knight of St. John's we'll want to change the Portuguese UU.

I agree with the East/West India companies being classed as projects. Could we not treat the corporations the same? Call them trading companies or order depending on what they are but still treat them as projects. That's how I've listed them here and in the wiki.
BTW. Did you see my earlier question about Atlantic Access? I can't see any art or even a mention of it except for the line "grants Atlantic Access" when you get Astronomy. Is there supposed to be more than that? Like fixed points in the ocean or something?

Edit. Just looked at your corporation suggestions in the wiki. Nice job except for the Hapsburgs. Not really a financial institution. More a dynasty. Much better a Jewish banking network like the Rothschilds instead. I'll do some research and get back to you on that.

BTW. Did you see my earlier question about Atlantic Access? I can't see any art or even a mention of it except for the line "grants Atlantic Access" when you get Astronomy. Is there supposed to be more than that? Like fixed points in the ocean or something?

By art I actually just meant I added the "trade" font, so when you have Atlantic Access it shows up in your city screen as two little red arrows along with all your other resources. On the map, Atlantic Access is currently just a little black dot on some squares, revealed when you research Astronomy. You should be able to find them by turning on the resource "bubbles" in the interface if you know what I mean. For example, there is one of them at the mouth of the Thames. I know I need to come up with some better way of representing this on the map, but it's a struggle to represent something so abstract without looking like a cartoon on the map.

By art I actually just meant I added the "trade" font, so when you have Atlantic Access it shows up in your city screen as two little red arrows along with all your other resources. On the map, Atlantic Access is currently just a little black dot on some squares, revealed when you research Astronomy. You should be able to find them by turning on the resource "bubbles" in the interface if you know what I mean. For example, there is one of them at the mouth of the Thames. I know I need to come up with some better way of representing this on the map, but it's a struggle to represent something so abstract without looking like a cartoon on the map.

OK. Maybe we could use one of the ship pictures I posted in files as screen art for it. And in case we cross/posted, what do you think of my suggestion of a Jewish banking network instead of the Hapsburgs?

Thanks. But I think you just posted in the other thread, didn't you? It will be replied to. No need to double-post.

Sorry I just realized that this post would be better in this Civ discussion thread than in playtesting, thats why I posted it again.

Rothschilds seemed too late for our mod, and I assume we'll be somehow representing the role of Jews as money-lenders in this period through Judiasm itself. I agree the Habsburgs are the "odd-one-out". I don't know if we will ever do anything more elaborate with dynasties/political families. If so, then we should clearly not have the Habsburgs in as a corporations. It not, then I thought it might be a nice way to represent how many ties and connections this family had all throughout Europe. But honestly, who's going to be excited at generating espionage points with a corporation?

If you come up with another better suggestion I'm happy to use it instead of the Habsburgs.

Rothschilds seemed too late for our mod, and I assume we'll be somehow representing the role of Jews as money-lenders in this period through Judiasm itself. I agree the Habsburgs are the "odd-one-out". I don't know if we will ever do anything more elaborate with dynasties/political families. If so, then we should clearly not have the Habsburgs in as a corporations. It not, then I thought it might be a nice way to represent how many ties and connections this family had all throughout Europe. But honestly, who's going to be excited at generating espionage points with a corporation?

If you come up with another better suggestion I'm happy to use it instead of the Habsburgs.

OK. I've found a couple of alternatives which would best suit the medieval nature of the mod.

1. The Bank of St. George - founded by Genoan merchants in 1407. It came to dominate business in the Mediterranean for the next 2 centuries and financed a couple of the later Crusades. Especially important in providing maritime insurance against attacks by the Barbary Pirates. Obviously the Cross of St. George as its logo, which has later adopted as the English Cross. Perhaps just call it the "St. Georges Bank" for short.
2. The Monte di Pieta - the official Papal bank, founded about 1300 to avoid the use of Jewish moneylenders. Its premises were considered consecrated sites so could avoid the ban on usury. Lent money against deposited goods much like a pawn shop. Papal bankers became the most successful in the Western world at least until the rise of the Genoa banks and later the Amsterdam Exchange Bank in 1607.

I like the bank of St. George. It nicely helps model the Genoan trade network. I can't use the cross of St. George for it though. For our time-frame Genoa should really have that as their flag and the Templars have it as their symbol too... I went with the crest of the House of Grimaldi, which seems to be one of the most important families in this bank.

There's now a nice symmetry with three military orders, three banking/merchant families, and the (somewhat unique) Hansaetic league. I've adjusted the resources so that there is the proper "competition" between this groups and you won't be able to have multiple baking families or multiple military orders within the same city.

I like the bank of St. George. It nicely helps model the Genoan trade network. I can't use the cross of St. George for it though. For our time-frame Genoa should really have that as their flag and the Templars have it as their symbol too... I went with the crest of the House of Grimaldi, which seems to be one of the most important families in this bank.

There's now a nice symmetry with three military orders, three banking/merchant families, and the (somewhat unique) Hansaetic league. I've adjusted the resources so that there is the proper "competition" between this groups and you won't be able to have multiple baking families or multiple military orders within the same city.

Looks good to me. One question though. There are no Great Priests in RFC. Shouldn't that be Great Prophets?

I think we should upgrade the market and grocer by giving them extra happiness- and healthbonus' for colonial-resources. If we don't, I think colonial-resources are almost useless.

I think we must give the economy civics a bonus for corporations. Like free market (-25% corporation payments) in the normal game does.

This are my ideas:
Manioralism: +25% corporation payments or nothing changes
Guilds: nothing changes
Mercentialism: Foreign corporations have no effect.
Merchant Republic: -25% corporation payments

We could also (if it's possible ofcourse) change colonialism from +1:traderoute: per city into +1:gold: per city per colony.

Good suggestions merijn, especially on corporations/civic interplay.

As for a new Portuguese UU:

The best I found searching on the Net was dismounted cavalry. Dunno anything else though


I agree that a unique Foot Knight would be appropriate from the Battle of Aljubarrota. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aljubarrota) If we could come up with a snazzy name that would be good. Other options (ideas cribbed from Medieval II: Total War):

Light horse, Jinetes, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jinetes
Light infantry, Almogavers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almogavares

Both these units might be better Spanish rather than Portuguese though.

@ sedna 17

Look at the military redesign. I've posted all the UU which are cheaper than the normal unit. (last post)

Bulgaria - i dont remember exactly but i know the word khan and khanate is used with bulgaria in this mod, im not sure if they had a khanate sometimes in the history, but they definitely hed tsars for the most of history, so its not good to refer to bulghars as khanate - which would relate them to mongols or others steppe nations.

Bulgaria's most famous Medieval leader is Khan Krum. His name is all over Bulgaria - street names, wines, you name it. I can mail you it on a T shirt if you'd like.:goodjob:

shouldnt there be denmark and finland if they are in the mod all scandinavia's there

1) Denmark and Norway are both as Norse
2) I don't think there was a Finnish nation out there at this era

How's the progress on this? Where can I try out a test game?

Use the download from the second post in RFC Europe files.

Thx. Is that the November 2008 version or does it get regularly updated?

Forgive me for being a bit retarded/having a retarded computer... but how do I get to playing the game once I've downloaded the file?

The test builds are hosted on "Rapidshare", so you want the link to the April 13th test version. Here it is again: http://rapidshare.com/files/220581099/RFCEurope_test_April13.zip. I've removed some of those old attachments on that post to make things less confusing.

Once you have this downloaded you can extract/unzip it to your mods folder. Then the best way to start it is to go to RFCEurope/PublicMaps/ and double-click on the world builder save in that file.

got it, now how do I get it to the mods folder?

GOT IT!!! ok... I'll pick... Spain. Ok I'm not liking the use of Cyrus and Brennus art, that'll get changed later, yes?

Leon... not madrid... Catholic missionary looks a tad bit on the constipated side

I think the two tile spacing rule for cities needs to be eliminated. It's better at 1. Seville and Cadiz are two cities both extremely important in Spain's history. The only way for me to get both is if I put Seville on that hill and then Cadiz on the salt hill. Not accurate for Cadiz it should be on the grasslands under the river. which is.. oh ya, 1 tile away from Seville.

Also, where are the Madeira Islands? I see the Azores, I see the Canaries, no Madeira.

I try settling the coast of Northern Africa and I get Murcia, Vitoria, etc. you know, those "what the hell are you doing here, Spain doesnt settle here" cities. They traditionally had colonies/forts in the Western Sahara area of Morocco. Think Villa Cisneros, Saguia el Hamra...

I think the two tile spacing rule for cities needs to be eliminated. It's better at 1. Seville and Cadiz are two cities both extremely important in Spain's history. The only way for me to get both is if I put Seville on that hill and then Cadiz on the salt hill. Not accurate for Cadiz it should be on the grasslands under the river. which is.. oh ya, 1 tile away from Seville.

Also, where are the Madeira Islands? I see the Azores, I see the Canaries, no Madeira.

I try settling the coast of Northern Africa and I get Murcia, Vitoria, etc. you know, those "what the hell are you doing here, Spain doesnt settle here" cities. They traditionally had colonies/forts in the Western Sahara area of Morocco. Think Villa Cisneros, Saguia el Hamra...

A couple of points. Yes, Leon was the first capitol. Madrid was never the capitol until the 16thC. I sympathize about Seville and Cadiz but why should you build both? You need at least 2 tiles between cities so they grow to a decent size. Anyway Spain doesn't get that chance. Cordoba settles there first anyway.
Not sure about Madeira. I thought that was there. As far as Spain settling on the west coast of Africa. OK, maybe. But why would you? There are no resources SW of the elephant. What good is a city in the desert with no resources even if its on the coast?
And, yes. Some of the leaderheads will change when we find the best replacements for them. Hope you enjoy play-testing the game. Your feedback is always welcome.

I finished that game, I know it's absolutely pointless to build down there. I tried because Spain did once have many trading posts/forts, etc. down there, so did Portugal. But the thing is, later in the game I realized they also didn't have city names for once-spanish territory in the Netherlands, Genoa, Southern Italy, and some of Sicily.
Why is the two tile rule even there? What if some players WANT to have crappy productivity as long as they can really recreate an empire as it was however many years ago?
And can someone please do something about the whole Madeira thing?:confused:

Cordoba gets there first? I always conquer Cordoba, you HAVE to conquer Cadiz (Al-Qatif) to get the atlantic access thing and build colonies for the UHV.I'm going to end up there anyway.

Cordoba gets there first? I always conquer Cordoba, you HAVE to conquer Cadiz (Al-Qatif) to get the atlantic access thing and build colonies for the UHV.I'm going to end up there anyway.

Of course Cordoba gets there first. Its one of their first cities and very important too.
There is no way you will conquer it before 1200 if the Cordoba AI doesn't let you. The point of this mod is to make every civ playable not recreate history as it happened. If I'm playing as Cordoba, Spain will disappear. Same with Portugal. I guarantee that. So much for history.

And the Madeiras??? lol

First of all I would like to say that I really like this modmod. Even at this stage in alpha it is fun to play and has a great potential. Unfortunately there is no GENERAL RFCE ideas thread so I will post some of my thoughts here. I would like to get a feedback from developers, for all the 9 ideas, whenever they find some time.

1. Let's create a special symbol for stability like :religion:, :gp: and :espionage:. She (it? :)) deserves it. Some people get annoyed by stability but I personally see it as a jewel of RFC. Moreover, I really believe Firaxis should polish and incorporate this idea in Civ 5. It's shame stability has no symbol so far. Lower right corner symbols are for different states of stability, but one needs a general symbol just like there is :religion: and there is a symbol for Taoism. I think combination of "solid"-"collapsing" with one ball (like a spider) can be a good candidate.

2. Spell out stability in Pedia. Make it pronounced, the same as :religion: or :gp:. For courthouses, for example, add to +2 :espionage: also this: +1 permanent :stability symbol: (cities). Make people to SEE what is hurting stability and what does improve it. I was listening to the interview of Civ4 AI programmer Soren Johnson who said: "what you see is what you get, that's the approach we have took with Civ4 since it's early prototype". Mouse over help is a great feature in Civ4. Info on stability must be present everywhere in interface, it's a BIG task, but let's start with some generic symbol and then add to this little by little.

3. Papal state can truly become a landmark for this modmod. I suggest to look into it deeper, make it one of the essentials of this modmod, a special concept unique to RFCE. The Pope had more power and influence than any king in Europe. This must be unique AI only, heavily Python driven DIPLOMATIC powerhouse civ with Apostolic Palace, so "Italians" is always eligible for being a Resident (Pope). There was a time when there were 2 or 3 Popes, simulate this with another candidate from Europe. France kept Popes in Avignon for 70 years! The concept of stability can really change entire strategy in this game. Why don't we tie stability with Catholicism as a SR to the attitude of the Pope ("you have voted for us") ? Make brand new stability civic "Investiture" to add stability and to pay Rome some money. Teach some AI civs to respect Pope by artificially boosting Rome's Power rating (also see #4). Let Rome/Pope come up with some annoying resolutions and be active in diplomacy.

4. Very revolutionary but very important suggestion. HRE and Papal State: force HRE (no Germany, HRE was dissolved in 1806!) to start and stay as vassal of Rome even with human player unless the state religion is Protestantism. This will add new feature to RFCE -- human player can be AI's vassal and will have all the incentives to research Printing Press to break away! If technically for human's it's not possible at least make it so for AI HRE. For HRE UV make Friendly attitude from Pope as number one UV (new idea for UV!). Any time Pope had problems with Normans on South he would call upon Emperor.

5. Expansion civics MUST only affect stability. Last civic in that category right now just adds trade route. Even if you don't want to replace it with Investiture just change that last civic to affect stability, at least like RFC has it (Commonwealth).

6. Crusades:

6a. Please make Jerusalem BIG stability prize for any civ that controls it. This will add so much fun to the game. As a human player you will die to own that city. Stability is more valuable than gold in RFC.

6b. Any nation which agrees to go to crusade must see some consequences even if it was not elected to lead the crusade (right now there is none!). Don't create units under walls of Jerusalem -- CUT the best unit in the crusading country and PASTE it at Jerusalem (or redirected city). The leader gets two units and a created trebuchet. Should be so fun to see international diverse units all together trying to take Jerusalem. Later challenge the winner with Barbarian Camel Archers. After 3-4 turns upon capturing make the winner to enjoy stability bonus in their mainland.

7. Make "red spy" :) unit to destroy Pagan shrines and Jewish Quarters. Right now you can build Jewish Quarter, erase Judaism and still enjoy 25% gold! And Pagan shrines must make unhappy anyone with state religion (lets think about "no religion" as Paganism). "Teach" AI to use it this way: make this unit "work" the moment it enters the city and give AI some desire to build it+discount hummers.

8. In general this modmod begs to make every religion different from each other (very nice new addition to RFC philosophy of "unique" -ness ( I know there is a special mod for religions but we could use just one cute positive and one negative feature).

Think about it as a Unique Power (good AND bad) for EVERY religion! Very nice extrapolation of Rhye's original UP concept.

Under Islam, Palace gives free scientist (obsolete with Scientific Method) but Pigs and Wine cause unhappiness (Islamic leaders may trade them).

Every Catholic nation must pay "tithe" to the Pope (every religious building -1 gold) but enjoys hummer bonus from AP in Rome. Historically many German and Norse princes liked Protestantism because of idea of "cheap church".

No religion (Paganism) -- authomatically creates Pagan Shrine. Pagan shrine gives +2 happy face with no religion and +1-2 angry face under any other religion. Thus everyone, (except Byzantium) must start with no Religion and therefore pagan shrines. Players need to destroy them with "red spies".

Under Orthodoxy: +1 stability per city with Orthodox Church. Negative effect -- higher probability for heresy event (RFCE heresy event to be created, not the default BTS beneficial event).

Protestantism -- Palace increases science AFTER Scientific Method but perpetual war with the Pope (and his vassal, make one catholic nation ALWAYS vassalized to Rome, so if HRE becomes Protestant and thus free from Rome, Austria becomes Rome's vassal).

Judaism is special, so I say "if Judaism is present in city" and not Under Judaism:
If Judaism is present enable Jewish quarter (destroyed after removal of Judaism). On the negative side Judaism and Jewish quarter each cause one angry face in city (antisemitism). Upon removal of Judaism a random nation gets "Jewish refugee" (missionary in disguise) unit -- it will be fun to see how Jews survived despite all the prosecutions.

9. UP for Portugal, Power of Colonies: each Colonial Project gives one free GM (not settled) and Lisbon tile represents another continent for higher revenue of trade missions.

I know this is a lot. But please read it and give your thoughts

1. I agree completely. Maybe use the scales as a representation of stability?

3. I think Rome should be able to be DOW'd upon after the major players have spawned (e.g. after 1054, the Great Schism), and when captured, yields a Pope (much like the Emperor in the Three Kingdoms' mod) that can be physically moved elsewhere (e.g. Avignon) and allows the player some benefits (e.g. some espionage and stability). Whoever controls the Pope has more of the animosity of nonbelievers and believers alike (everybody wants the pope, right?), especially if he's moved elsewhere other than Rome. Rome should be allowed to revolt from time to time to set up another Pope, so that your pope becomes an antipope. The True pope can call on a crusade against you which will be like a vote, and if passed, every Catholic country will DOW on you until you delete the antipope.

4. The problem with HRE being the pope's vassal is that the latter will demand a lot of stuff, and unless you disable war with the pope when you refuse, you'll always be at war with him.

6a. Agree, would apply also to Rome if controlled.

7. Well, you can have no Jews in a city and yet still have a Jewish (banking) quarter. Better reserve sabotaging of buildings to spies.

8. Agree with most of your suggestions, but I disagree about the Catholic tithe because that will make the Pope very rich. Maybe just with Catholic Churches and only if you run organized religion or theocracy and NOT divine monarchy or merchant republic (Louis and the Venetians would never send gold to the pope).
Also, automatic pagan shrines will allow too much culture early on and you can't "unbuild" pagan shrines. Maybe make pagan religion give more happiness instead.

Problem with all those suggestions is they would require MAJOR work, and I'm not sure they're worth it as of now, with other aspects already present in the mod still not finished.

But I totally love AP's idea for Pope and Antipope, if restricted to a tight time frame (after the last crusade and just until Reformation begins), and letting civs choose sides. This would be complemented with the possible mechanisms for HRE-Pope interaction.