View Full Version : Rhye's of Europe Civ Discussion Thread


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10

merijn_v1
Apr 18, 2009, 03:49 AM
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.

AFAIK the UP will be +25% colony-build-speed, but has to be coded. And IMO it is the best UP that fit the Portuguese.

sedna17
Apr 18, 2009, 01:45 PM
These are a lot of good ideas. The whole Pope/HRE thing will definitely have to wait until 3Miro returns for that sort of coding.

I'd been thinking about laying out stability in the civilopedia and everywhere else in the game. It's actually technically challenging to do it properly/fully because of how stability is currently implemented purely in Python (I could explain in more depth, but probably it's not important). There are some parts which can be done which would help though. Buildings and Civics can be done.

I'm not sure (technically) how to implement more religious diversity outside of different building bonuses. The normal inquisitor unit should/will destroy Jewish buildings and Pagan shrines.

AnotherPacifist
Apr 18, 2009, 04:33 PM
It's my favorite civic and allows traditionally backwards civs (read: large civs) to grow really big and produce large armies for conquest. I would love to get it back even if means it's high maintenance.

Maybe a reasonable compromise is to let free peasantry get the double improvement speed while giving serfdom the farm hammers.

sedna17
Apr 18, 2009, 11:46 PM
I'm open to suggestions on civics. I did them as one of the first things in this mod, and they need some serious polishing. I want to simplify them (lots of little effects makes it too hard to chose between them).

The reason I changed serfdom is because with +1 hammer and +1 gold (with Manorialism) the AI built farms everywhere they could. I would load Dutch starts in 1600 and there wouldn't be a cottage on the map -- everything would be farms that could be farms.

We could of course remove the +1 gold from Manorialism...

I guess I want farms to be the default building early on, but if they come with too many advantages then they 1) are the only improvement and 2) lead to all these huge cities in the middle of the dark ages. Really... the problem is that medieval farms weren't that productive, but they were still the dominant "improvement". How do we model that? Serfdom could trade off +1 hammer for -1 food.

BurnEmDown
Apr 19, 2009, 05:28 AM
Maybe cottages should give better bonuses later on? And improve faster.

Tigranes
Apr 19, 2009, 11:51 AM
How about Village and Town under Serfdom to yield +1 hummer? This way we will have farms with Manorialism and Villages under Serfdom. Serfdom will represent how villagers been used to build all those castles. In addition to that, legal civic Manorialism will help to make farmers to earn +1 gold because of law and order. Is it possible to make farms earn that +1 gold ONLY when Manor House is built, though?

Verily
Apr 19, 2009, 12:33 PM
I'm open to suggestions on civics. I did them as one of the first things in this mod, and they need some serious polishing. I want to simplify them (lots of little effects makes it too hard to chose between them).

The reason I changed serfdom is because with +1 hammer and +1 gold (with Manorialism) the AI built farms everywhere they could. I would load Dutch starts in 1600 and there wouldn't be a cottage on the map -- everything would be farms that could be farms.

We could of course remove the +1 gold from Manorialism...

I guess I want farms to be the default building early on, but if they come with too many advantages then they 1) are the only improvement and 2) lead to all these huge cities in the middle of the dark ages. Really... the problem is that medieval farms weren't that productive, but they were still the dominant "improvement". How do we model that? Serfdom could trade off +1 hammer for -1 food.

Well, one way to solve the problem would be to eliminate irrigation, that is, only ever allow farms next to rivers/lakes. Serfom providing -1 Food from Farms could work, too, but +1 Hammers would not be enough to make it worthwhile; you'd have to get another +1 Commerce at least, too. (A 2-1-1 tile is nothing special; 2-1-2 is at least somewhat worthwhile.)

Also, I feel like something extra is needed for Free Peasantry. The bonus Cottage growth is nice but not a big deal, and prior to the change to Serfdom I would sit in Serfdom until the late-game labor civics were available. Maybe Free Peasantry should get the improvement construction bonus instead? Right now, almost all of Europe is heavily developed by ~1300, but that's very ahistorical. Moving the improvement construction bonus to Free Peasantry would slow down development.

Villages and Towns obviously not receive any bonus under Serfdom; it's completely against flavor and makes no sense.

So:

Serfdom
+1 :hammers: and :commerce: from Farms.
-1 :food: from Farms.
-50% Cottage growth. (might be reasonable to get rid of this)

Free Peasantry
+100% Cottage growth.
+50% improvement construction rate.

(An alternative possibility is for Farms to provide no extra food initially except on food bonuses but gain an extra :food: at some mid-game tech. But that seems a little problematic.)

sedna17
Apr 19, 2009, 01:56 PM
I think everyone can agree that the worker speed bonus should move off serfdom to some later labor civic, probably free peasants. Consider that done.

I'm definitely also in favor of removing farm-irrigation (or moving it later in the tech tree). There are a lot of rivers on our map, so that will not solve too much I fear.

Increasing the benefit of towns/cottage is of course one solution, but then we'd probably have to increase mines and mills and workshops to make them reasonable -- it would inflate all the prices. This is an option, but I don't think it's optimal.

I know I suggested the +1 :hammers: -1 :food: formulation, but there is a problem with that too. Ideally, serfdom should last (i.e. make sense for) a long time in central/eastern Europe (i.e. Russia). A lot of that land is plains. It makes sense to stay in a farm-bonus economy if you need the farms anyway.

Perhaps the problem is really just that we don't have effective limits to growth in the west. If we had more scarcity in resources and happy/health from buildings then having too many farms on grassland would be bad. The AI might recognize that.

Verily
Apr 19, 2009, 03:32 PM
Perhaps the problem is really just that we don't have effective limits to growth in the west. If we had more scarcity in resources and happy/health from buildings then having too many farms on grassland would be bad. The AI might recognize that.

The AI never recognizes that; its cities grow well into Unhealth and Unhappiness already. And scarce resources would make it much more difficult to distinguish between strong city sites and weak ones.

One solution might be to simply decrease the rate at which cities grow. There should be a way to increase the food requirement for population growth. If it were doubled, cities wouldn't become huge in the early game but would still have the potential to be large later on. In addition to this, the bonus food storage from Granaries and Smokehouses could be cut down to 10% each.

JediClemente
Apr 19, 2009, 05:06 PM
I think Verily's suggestion is the way to go. That is, increasing the food requirements for cities to grow. But not changing the bonuses from granaries and smokehouses, because it would also affect not-already-so-big cities.

Population in Europe began to grow steadily after the Black Death, and moreso later. If it would be possible to dynamically eliminate the suggested decrease in city growing rate (that is, restore it to default) by a middle-late tech, it would be perfect.

sedna17
Apr 19, 2009, 06:03 PM
I think Verily's suggestion is the way to go. That is, increasing the food requirements for cities to grow. But not changing the bonuses from granaries and smokehouses, because it would also affect not-already-so-big cities.

Population in Europe began to grow steadily after the Black Death, and moreso later. If it would be possible to dynamically eliminate the suggested decrease in city growing rate (that is, restore it to default) by a middle-late tech, it would be perfect.

That is a good idea, and easy to implement (I think). There are certainly tags to change the city growth rates as a function of era -- I just hadn't seen them before. As long as they end up working the way it looks like they should...

AnotherPacifist
Apr 19, 2009, 06:16 PM
I don't know if this is intended, but after switching to free religion, it's impossible to build any monasteries or seminaries. Kinda defeats the purpose of having multiple religions in a city (if you don't need the culture). Of course, with the Palacio de Pena one can spread all religions to all cities, switch to one religion until all the cities have seminaries and monasteries, then switch to another. But that's really cumbersome.

AnotherPacifist
Apr 19, 2009, 06:18 PM
It would be nice to be able to make certain civs obsolete: i.e. they won't ever respawn after you eliminate them. Examples would be Kievan Rus, Vikings, Burgundy, Cordoba, Byzantines. Maybe a certain wonder when built will achieve this purpose.

sedna17
Apr 19, 2009, 07:39 PM
The thought was that since we have religious buildings also being the science boosters, allowing someone to easily collect all of them would be rather unbalancing. I agree that this probably makes free religion not a great choice though.

As for resurrection, currently we have probabilities for each Civ to respawn. Respawns only happen if 1) enough civs are dead and 2) the respawning civ's cities are held by someone who is rather unstable. These probabilities should effectively be thought of as relative/normalized probabilities. Anyhow, it would be easy to turn any of these numbers down to zero, which would eliminate respawns for that civ. I'm not sure 0 is a good idea, but we could lower some of them.

20, #Burgundy
10, #Byzantium
90, #Frankia
30, #Arabia
30, #Bulgaria
20, #Cordoba
90, #Spain
80, #Norse
40, #Venecia
60, #Kiev
70, #Hungary
80, #Germany
60, #Poland
80, #Moscow
10, #Genoa
70, #England
70, #Portugal
80, #Austria
50, #Turkey
70, #Sweden
60, #Dutch

AnotherPacifist
Apr 19, 2009, 07:53 PM
The respawn probability can be calculated in terms of their historical longevity. E.g. after 1453, the Byzantines should never respawn, i.e. the probability becomes 0.
On the other hand, for civs that should existed but have collapsed (e.g. Muscovy due to Mongol invasion), at their peak (1500-1550), the probability should increase progressively.

Verily
Apr 19, 2009, 09:41 PM
I suppose it's worth pointing out that slowing city growth rates makes Plague more devastating, so you might want to tone down the Plague a little bit if you do double food requirements.

merijn_v1
Apr 20, 2009, 02:05 AM
I don't know if this is intended, but after switching to free religion, it's impossible to build any monasteries or seminaries. Kinda defeats the purpose of having multiple religions in a city (if you don't need the culture). Of course, with the Palacio de Pena one can spread all religions to all cities, switch to one religion until all the cities have seminaries and monasteries, then switch to another. But that's really cumbersome.

You need a state-religion for those. If you have free religion, you don't have one.

Barak
Apr 20, 2009, 07:25 AM
As for resurrection, i find it really annoying when a civ declares war, are conquered, and within 50-60 years of being fully absorbed into a stable civ, declare independance!

For instance, in a recent game where I was actually going for a Venetian cultural victory,, Austria declared war on me rather early on. While I was surprised, i amassed my army, and made quick work taking Wien and Prag. As I never wanted Prag, I gifted it to my ally the Germans, and built a nice powerful production city.

Out of nowhere, Austria declared independance (Germany and I were both stable) and I had to retake Austria, kiling off all my culture (I had used 2 artists there) and most of my buildings.

I agree that certain civs should respawn from independent states, but when conquered, some just shouldn't unless the civs that currently hold their territory are unstable. Playing a game where the map is the same everything gets rather boring. I like to see games with huge empires or games where the map of Europe has been redrawn.

sedna17
Apr 20, 2009, 08:33 AM
Interesting behavior you describe Barak, perhaps there is some bug in the resurrection code allowing too frequent rebirths.

I like the idea for a time-variable resurrection probability This avoids the determinism of set resurrection dates, but will help with historical realism. Maybe I'll model them as mathematical functions.

micbic
Apr 20, 2009, 10:12 AM
The basic question is: Why do respawns happen?
1) Nationalist reasons (perhaps Nationalism should have been discovered for a respawn, or any other landmark tech?)
2) Instability of the empire leads to smaller factions breaking up
3) Religious reasons
4) Inspired by another revolution, thus creating revolution waves
5) Certain civics may encourage or discourage civs of breaking up
6) Incited by other forces


For example, Greek revolution happened due to reasons 1-4, the American one due to 1, 2, 5 and perhaps 6.

Perhaps for a revolution to happen, there should be a minimum of 4 of the 6 above conditions. No cities should flip, but a military force could show up, immediately in war with you. Instead of war, you could have the option to release civ as vassal, free the civ or pay the revolutionaries to stop the attack. You could also ''incite a revolt'' to a rival civ who occupies another civ's core area.

Any thoughts?

BurnEmDown
Apr 20, 2009, 02:56 PM
Or maybe even play as the revolutionaries! Just like in E:TW.
If you succeed at taking your capital you civics will be switched to different ones depending what the people want.

FuzzyRabbitLord
Apr 23, 2009, 01:36 AM
I had suggested this once before but ill bring it up again, It would be interesting to change some respawn location as the game progresses, that why civs can in effect represent two different civs (with a name change which should be easy)
some examples of how this would work.

Byzantine respawns somewhere in the 1600's +
they respawn as Greece, and take athons and mistra, maybe even thesolanika if we wil go so far.

Cordoba respawns after 1500 as Morocco (something of fez... cant remember what Morocco was called then) in Tanja

the name change would also be interesting (this would require much less coding) in maybe that when a civ respawns it comes with a more modern name, (maybe the name of whatever soveriegn nation controlled it around that time if there was one.

other candidates could be burgundy, spain (respawning out of toledo instead)

this would ad some more variability to the game and could lead to some interesting situations, some locations are already in the core area so it might be a little easier to code, then again this might just be to much work to implement and or screw with the balance or smething

Tigranes
May 05, 2009, 01:11 PM
Just an idea I would like to discuss: every time I see a message -- a new civilization is being born I ask myself -- where is the visible leader? The birth of a civ is represented by the stack of Settlers and Archers, how about the founding father?

Why don't we give each civ a great person at the birth -- appropriate to that civilization and with his historical name. For example Damascus was conquered by the Rashidun Caliphate during the reign of Umar by forces under Khaled ibn al-Walid. Arabs can start with Great General Khaled ibn al-Walid, or with Great Prophet (Caliph) Umar. While the Great General would be the most appropriate choice for the most civs, some, Venice and Genoa, for example, could start with a Great Merchant. Cordoba with a Great Scientist. Byzantium can start without Hagia Sophia but with Isidore of Miletus or Anthemius of Tralles as a Great Engeneer (the current building was originally constructed as a church between 532 and 537 A.D and we start at 500 AD).

The Great Spy is the other good choice for Byzantium. What separated Byzantium from other nations of the early Middle Ages was its active involvement in manipulating internal events in other countries. Today we take for granted the existence of government agencies which gather and interpret intelligence, cultivate support in foreign circles and perhaps even instigate rebellion. To find such a sophisticated and centralized arrangement as early as the sixth century is truly remarkable.

To aid in dealing with other nations, the Byzantines established an organization called the 'Bureau of Barbarians' (aka Scotland Yard in Civ IV:D), which gathered information from every source imaginable (even priests) and kept files on who was influential, who was susceptible to bribery, what a nation's historical roots were, what was likely to impress them, etc.

The only concern is that this can disbalance the starting situations. But it would also be very fun to see how AI will use his free Great Person.

So what you think, guys?

sedna17
May 05, 2009, 02:22 PM
FuzzyRabitLord:

What you're proposing is somewhat complicated to implement. I think we'll eventually move to have the original spawn zone and the re-spawn zones be different (they are in RFC, but we merged them back-in-the-day to make things easier). We'll also want to work on dynamic renaming -- which can be made time-specific (albeit with more work). Between these, we could get most of the effect of re-born civs being "different". It's not as easy to automatically give a different capitol, for example, but it could be coded for some specific examples. In general, we still haven't really settled on a re-spawn model yet, but I will keep your good suggestions in mind as we go forward.

Tigranes:

I'm lukewarm this idea. It seems an unnecessary complication. I'm not sure the AI wouldn't disband a GP right away when it sees it doesn't have any cities (this could be tested, or the GP could spawn a few turns later ala the workers). In a sense, the leaderheads/human player are the "fathers" of each Civ.

AnotherPacifist
May 05, 2009, 02:45 PM
Actually, a random GP when workers appear would be a welcome variation; depending on the GP, you might take your civ in a different direction (military vs. scientific vs. financial). The only problem would be that there are more than enough great people names for certain civs (Arabia) but not much for others (Bulgaria).

Tigranes
May 05, 2009, 03:17 PM
I don't see why AI would disband a Great General?

Take Clovis I, for example. He is remembered for three main accomplishments : his unification of the Frankish nation, his conquest of Gaul, and his conversion to the Roman Catholic Faith. Leaderhead is a general representation of the Civ, the best known leader for the perioid of 500 -1800 AD. Saladin was Kurd not even an Arab! The civ specific Great Person at the start only responsible for a jumpstart, he adds flavor. His "uniqeness" would be perfectly in line with the entire RFC phylosophy. Well, think about the "founding" Great Person as a starting technology :) -- civ's founding Great Person is kinda defining the starting situation for that civ, just like techs, gold, the place, etc.

Is it a complication on the level of coding or unpredictable changes in the game mechanics? But I can certainly see that is it hard enough to balance the existing stuff before introducing something new.

Where in a code do you assign which units each civ gets on the spawn? Just want to see what would AI do... :)

sedna17
May 05, 2009, 03:39 PM
Sure, feel free to experiment with it and see what the AI does.

Assets/Python/RiseAndFall.py

See the function called "createStartingUnits", it should be reasonably self-explanatory. Note the Byzantium/Burgundy/Frankia have their units on the map instead of being created by this function.

To add a great prophet would just be
utils.makeUnit(con. iProphet, iCiv, tPlot, 2)

Assets/Python/Consts.py lists the units available and their names in the code.

3Miro
May 05, 2009, 07:15 PM
utils.makeUnit(con.iProphet, iCiv, tPlot, 2)


No space between con and iProohet.

If Byzantines start with a spy, who would they use it against? I don't know if they will keep on to it until Bulgaria spawns.

The AI uses GPs in a rather predictable matter, if we give a GP to nation, then it will probably always use it in the exact same way anyway. Since it is easy to add it, you can do that to see what changes.

Different respawn regions would be challenge to implement. We will need to know which civ has respawned and which not to consider in stability. There is still the issue with overlapping core areas. Then how do you count owning cities in someone else's core ares and so on. It is not a bad idea, just hard to implement.

3Miro
May 05, 2009, 07:39 PM
The basic question is: Why do respawns happen?
1) Nationalist reasons (perhaps Nationalism should have been discovered for a respawn, or any other landmark tech?)
2) Instability of the empire leads to smaller factions breaking up
3) Religious reasons
4) Inspired by another revolution, thus creating revolution waves
5) Certain civics may encourage or discourage civs of breaking up
6) Incited by other forces


For example, Greek revolution happened due to reasons 1-4, the American one due to 1, 2, 5 and perhaps 6.

Perhaps for a revolution to happen, there should be a minimum of 4 of the 6 above conditions. No cities should flip, but a military force could show up, immediately in war with you. Instead of war, you could have the option to release civ as vassal, free the civ or pay the revolutionaries to stop the attack. You could also ''incite a revolt'' to a rival civ who occupies another civ's core area.

Any thoughts?

1018 Bulgaria was "conquered" by the Byzantines and in 1186 it "respawned" after the rebellion of Tzar Asen I. Reason 2 was definitely involved and I suppose one could argue one (it was long before the era of Nationalism, but then some define Bulgaria as the first nations state in Europe, so at least some version of medieval nationalistic concept was perhaps involved). Bulgarians and Byzantines were both Orthodox Christians, however, there were issues with the official language of the Church, Byzantines did not allow Bulgarian to be spoken in sermons, so one could argue a religious reason. There were no other revolutions or powers in the region that could have influenced anything and Byzantines surely did not change civics.

That is 2, 3 reasons tops, and the "respawn" did take place. Actually all of the issues stated (one way or another) are already implemented in the stability factor for the empires, so in terms of our mod, stability should be the main factor in respawn (as is in regular RFC). I don't yet know how the revised stability scheme works, but maybe that is part of the issue/solution.

Also, giving an army means that the army should belong to someone. So that is in effect respawn without cities.

Tigranes
May 05, 2009, 09:36 PM
No space between con and iProohet.

If Byzantines start with a spy, who would they use it against? I don't know if they will keep on to it until Bulgaria spawns.

The AI uses GPs in a rather predictable matter, if we give a GP to nation, then it will probably always use it in the exact same way anyway. Since it is easy to add it, you can do that to see what changes.


Byzantines could build a 'Bureau of Barbarians' (Scotland Yard) if we enable that building. Right now they keep Great Spy in the Capital, Rome settles Great Prophet, no tech bulbing, Franks settle Clovis (Great General). I think you are right about AI... :(

By the way, if Academy is in the game, why GS can't build it?

sedna17
May 05, 2009, 10:31 PM
By the way, if Academy is in the game, why GS can't build it?

Just a bug, but thanks for the reminder.

Tigranes
May 08, 2009, 11:21 AM
I am sure there have been talks about the poor sanitary conditions in Medieval Europe before (new manual talks about it too), but I would like to address this issue one more time. There is little record of sanitation in most of Europe until the High Middle Ages. Unsanitary conditions and overcrowding were widespread throughout Europe. Life for the average person at this time was indeed 'nasty, brutish and short.'

Now look at RFCE Europe somewhere around 1000 AD. We got lots of rivers, resources, buildings and trees, and all this results in big healthy Catholic cities. While Orthodox and Muslim cities used baths, this was not the case with Catholic nations. Bagdad, Cairo and Damascus had a combined population of 2 million, while Paris and London had about 50, 000 residents each. And yes, they did stink. Luckily Civ 4 has nice health system which is not used enough to depict the situation.

Would be nice to see that nasty green stinky smoke over the medium-to-bid European cities. Why don't we make population unit to create +2 unhealthiness? Until the High Middle Ages? It would capture the flavor, I would say the odor of the age :)

AnotherPacifist
May 08, 2009, 11:40 AM
I always bulb Arabic Medicine (8000 beakers) when I play Arabia and build the Round Church, not that I need it but it saves on beakers. Maybe make it give the same effect as reducing population unhealthiness from 2 to 1 (because otherwise it's a useless tech)?

sedna17
May 08, 2009, 01:31 PM
I agree that historically health should be more of a problem for western europe. Making each person +2 :yuck: would cause health problems for all of the map (I don't actually know where to make this change, but presumably it exists in the XML). One could balance this by putting more +:health: buildings in the "Islamic" techs as AP sort of suggests.

I'm not totally convinced that this would be more fun though. Perhaps it's just me, but I hate to have unhealthy cities. It bugs me, even if the un-health isn't impeding growth that much (or I don't care about growing right now).

jessiecat
May 08, 2009, 04:34 PM
I agree with Tigranes and AP. Health should never be a problem with Islamic civs in the early game while it should be with the rest until at least 1700, if we want to be historical about it. The same applies to tech research in Islamic civs. They should have big advantages up to 1400AD. After that their research rate can be halved at least, IMO. But then with the recent changes, Arabia has just become ridiculously unstable anyway so so maybe its a moot point, isn't it?

3Miro
May 08, 2009, 08:30 PM
I agree that historically health should be more of a problem for western europe. Making each person +2 :yuck: would cause health problems for all of the map (I don't actually know where to make this change, but presumably it exists in the XML). One could balance this by putting more +:health: buildings in the "Islamic" techs as AP sort of suggests.

I'm not totally convinced that this would be more fun though. Perhaps it's just me, but I hate to have unhealthy cities. It bugs me, even if the un-health isn't impeding growth that much (or I don't care about growing right now).

There should be a balancing factor in RFCEBalance that deals with the health. I think everyone has pretty much no health bonus, however, we can give Arabs a health bonus and make population give +2 unhealthiness or something along those lines.

(IIRC the balancing knob gave health, but could not remove it. No one gets negative health.)

3Miro
May 11, 2009, 07:58 AM
I read the post with RFCE suggestions. The pedia one is definitely good. It would take some coding, but we can move the stability penalties/bonuses in the XML. This will make our mode different from RFC, in RFC Rhye wanted to make stability "arcane" i.e. you don't know exactly how it works.

The Papal State and the HRE need a lot of improvement. They will require a lot of thought. For one I don't think adding a HRE player makes sense, we have no place to put him on the map. I think we should make it so that any Catholic player can become HRE i some way or another.

Jerusalem is supposed to give stability bonus and start a golden age. I just have not coded that part yet.

If Arabia found themselves at war with every Catholic nation in the world, that would harm their stability a lot. Multinational army before the wall of Jerusalem is good, but we have to be careful. We can make a generic "independent" Crusader player that will lead rouge/independent crusades around the map. The Crusader player will be friendly with all Catholics and at war with everyone else (even Orthodox players).

If the Portugal UP is underpowered, we will update it. I have been away from the mod for some time now and I don't have a good feel for the balance yet.

jessiecat
May 11, 2009, 08:23 AM
About your observations. I'm not sure which "pedia" idea you think is good. If its about giving stability bonuses for wonders, etc. I agree. As for the HRE, I don't think there's any need for a sep. civ. I'd rather see a more active Papacy with decrees, alliances and maybe even congresses of some kind. Not sure about the indy crusader though. As for Arabian instabilty, did you see where AP and I pointed out how this has become a big problem since the changes in the latest version?

sedna17
May 11, 2009, 09:00 AM
I think a big question for stability is how much we can easily reveal. I support as much disclosure as possible, and I think this is the general consensus of the group, but many things are tricky. Obviously we can add XML to the buildings to show their stability boost when built. This works well for a few other aspects of stability (+/- for certain techs), but would be much more work to implement for others. Consider a few of the other elements of stability:

Civics: Most of the "government" civics influence stability. We can add tags for these effects, but how do we show the interactions between civics? How do we display that Serfdom + Manorialism gives you a +X stability bonus?

Foreign: The stability value of vassals, open borders/wars, and unstable neighbors is complicated. There's no set stability hit for going to war, because the formula caps how much negative stability you can have from this. Do we calculate this number for the player and display it somewhere?

Expansion: A critical aspect of stability is the penalty into "foreign" homelands. There's no straightforward way to show the +/- from this -- the value of any given city depends on the others you have (i.e. there is some grace number of cities which you can have in foreign lands with no penalty).

As for Arabian instabilty, did you see where AP and I pointed out how this has become a big problem since the changes in the latest version?

Hey Jessiecat, I guess you missed in another post where I said I've found a bug with how stability and religion spreading interact that was causing a big part of the Arab instability. That fix will help a lot -- and I'm still investigating another part of their stability which is acting funny.

jessiecat
May 11, 2009, 09:08 AM
I guess you missed in another post where I said I've found a bug with how stability and religion spreading interact that was causing a big part of the Arab instability. That fix will help a lot -- and I'm still investigating another part of their stability which is acting funny.

No. I didn't miss it. I just thought you meant you found one factor and were still looking for others. I just wondered if 3Miro had any ideas about it. But if you do find out the full answer, that's great of course.

Verily
May 12, 2009, 09:20 PM
There's been discussion that a lot of the UHVs are really easy. I thought I'd test out my own variant of the English UHV to see if it was possible; it was not only possible but downright easy. (At least, on Monarch, it's just after 1500, and I'm Very Solid and outteching everyone although I just started to pull away.)

So, for the first English UHV:

Control (you have at least one city and no one else does) the British Isles, Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine and Ile-de-France in 1500 (not 1600).

The definitions of Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine and Ile-de-France are on the map below. People have been complaining about the English game being boring; in this model, you get a nice, long war with France and some pretty heavy obligations on the continent that can't just be abandoned through liberation once you've gotten the UHV. Also, 1450 wouldn't be particularly hard for a date, either, and it would be a bit more accurate historically per the Hundred Years War.

Also, it might be a good idea to separate out Scotland and Ireland. Right now, you don't need to control any cities in either for the UHV, you just need to raze the cities that are already there (although why you would is beyond me).

Tigranes
May 13, 2009, 01:23 AM
I read the post with RFCE suggestions.
***
The Papal State and the HRE need a lot of improvement. They will require a lot of thought. For one I don't think adding a HRE player makes sense, we have no place to put him on the map. I think we should make it so that any Catholic player can become HRE i some way or another.


Under HRE I meant Germany renamed, no analogies with Charlemagne scenario. I guess what I really want to ask is this -- is it possible to code human player to start as a vassal? HRE-Germany could have a UHV -- found Protestantism and break away from the Rome. Would be really fun to be AIs vassal.:)

Tigranes
May 13, 2009, 01:33 AM
If Arabia found themselves at war with every Catholic nation in the world, that would harm their stability a lot.

I see... But still, won't you agree that if you chose to crusade you need to face some consequences? Risk something to win something. How about to erase one unit from you and create the same unit under walls of Jerusalem under the ownership of the crusade's leader? Imagine Spanish Paladin :) If Jerusalem is captured every nation who contributed a unit could get Relic resource (as long as Jerusalem is Catholic). And if your unit survived - you get some cash. We could make it like Mercenary mode has it, with the possibility to recall the crusading unit back home.

BurnEmDown
May 13, 2009, 03:05 AM
Maybe there could be a non-playable faction called "Crusading Faction" or something, now when there's a crusade some civs could "sell" their units just like mercenaries and the "Crusading Faction" could be coded to hire all these units and they'll be coded to spawn next to Jerusalem. Now if all these units manage to take Jerusalem the crusading faction should keep them and thus the civs which hired them out will receive gpt. Also the crusading faction should get some relic resources so it could trade around with other catholic civs (they shouldn't be able to talk with non-catholic nations).

sedna17
May 13, 2009, 08:49 AM
So, for the first English UHV:

Control (you have at least one city and no one else does) the British Isles, Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine and Ile-de-France in 1500 (not 1600).


Sounds pretty good to me. I was just adjusting the behavior of the Scottish and Welsh barbarians, so I'll have to play a test game to see how that all plays out if you want to meet the goals by 1450. I'm also thinking of increasing the English spawn area to give them the possibility of a second city in Normany (mainly in case Calais gets raised, but also because Calais is so devoured by Paris' culture that it's annoying). That will make things a little easier for the English, but it will further encourage AI-AI French-English wars, and allows me to eliminate the production/tech penalties which France is lingering under without making them too powerful.

merijn_v1
May 13, 2009, 08:56 AM
Maybe the HRE could be a Wonder like the Apostolic Palace. Only catholic civs can build it and it does the same thing as the old Palace. (like signing OB with all members) The leader of the HRE is the leader of the Crusades and maybe gets a stability bonus and a better relation with the Pope. This way we have a HRE and a wonder with (almost) the same power as the Apostolic Palace. So what are your opinions?

merijn_v1
May 13, 2009, 08:59 AM
There's been discussion that a lot of the UHVs are really easy. I thought I'd test out my own variant of the English UHV to see if it was possible; it was not only possible but downright easy. (At least, on Monarch, it's just after 1500, and I'm Very Solid and outteching everyone although I just started to pull away.)

So, for the first English UHV:

Control (you have at least one city and no one else does) the British Isles, Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine and Ile-de-France in 1500 (not 1600).

The definitions of Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine and Ile-de-France are on the map below. People have been complaining about the English game being boring; in this model, you get a nice, long war with France and some pretty heavy obligations on the continent that can't just be abandoned through liberation once you've gotten the UHV. Also, 1450 wouldn't be particularly hard for a date, either, and it would be a bit more accurate historically per the Hundred Years War.

Also, it might be a good idea to separate out Scotland and Ireland. Right now, you don't need to control any cities in either for the UHV, you just need to raze the cities that are already there (although why you would is beyond me).

I like the idea. But with all those area, Frankia will definitly collapse. Especially if you have Paris (Ile-de-France). So I propose only Normandy and Brittany. Aquitaine is to far away in my opinion.

sedna17
May 13, 2009, 09:14 AM
I like the idea. But with all those area, Frankia will definitly collapse. Especially if you have Paris (Ile-de-France). So I propose only Normandy and Brittany. Aquitaine is to far away in my opinion.

That sounds too easy, though I confess I don't know until I try it. Just Normandy and Brittany means you probably only need one extra city above what you currently need -- and in an area where France rarely contests.

Does it matter if the English human player collapses France en route to a UHV?

Verily
May 13, 2009, 11:09 AM
That sounds too easy, though I confess I don't know until I try it. Just Normandy and Brittany means you probably only need one extra city above what you currently need -- and in an area where France rarely contests.

Does it matter if the English human player collapses France en route to a UHV?

That was kind of the point, actually. England should want to collapse France and control it. They claimed the throne of France for centuries, and the French fleur-de-lys representing their claim is still in the British royal insignia. I just thought any further than the areas I suggested would be a bit much (might not be possible/reasonable by 1500) and would usually require war with Burgundy or even sometimes Genoa or Spain. Aquitaine is not "too far"--like I said, it was not just possible but pretty easy. Began my invasion around 1350 and controlled it all by 1420, although I had to send some forces to Ireland to take Dublin before 1500 (could have been much more efficient with my time; I built a lot more troops than I needed).

France has to collapse Burgundy for their UHV. Austria has to collapse Hungary. Spain and Cordoba have to collapse each other. The Ottomans have to collapse the Byzantines, the Arabs, the Austrians, the Hungarians and the Bulgarians. Collapsing France for the UHV is no big deal, and it tends to help Burgundy and make them a pretty significant rival and threat.

Verily
May 13, 2009, 11:19 AM
Sounds pretty good to me. I was just adjusting the behavior of the Scottish and Welsh barbarians, so I'll have to play a test game to see how that all plays out if you want to meet the goals by 1450. I'm also thinking of increasing the English spawn area to give them the possibility of a second city in Normany (mainly in case Calais gets raised, but also because Calais is so devoured by Paris' culture that it's annoying). That will make things a little easier for the English, but it will further encourage AI-AI French-English wars, and allows me to eliminate the production/tech penalties which France is lingering under without making them too powerful.

I think you could just take independent Calais out entirely. In my test game, it had been razed before I spawned, and France had built Bolougne nearby (which didn't flip). The lack of a flip in France didn't cause any trouble for completing my suggested UHV. And really the existence of English Calais doesn't stimulate much conflict between AI France and AI England. Maybe if England got all of Normandy in its flip zone, but that would life way too easy for humans playing the English.

sedna17
May 13, 2009, 01:59 PM
I think you could just take independent Calais out entirely. In my test game, it had been razed before I spawned, and France had built Bolougne nearby (which didn't flip). The lack of a flip in France didn't cause any trouble for completing my suggested UHV. And really the existence of English Calais doesn't stimulate much conflict between AI France and AI England. Maybe if England got all of Normandy in its flip zone, but that would life way too easy for humans playing the English.

I really want to encourage English/French wars, but I think the English really need at least one or two cities on the continent in order to stimulate any conflict between them and the French when controlled by the AI. I would be fine giving them most of Normandy in their spawn zone. This is historically accurate; a lot of the early English kings spent most of their time in their French possessions in Normandy. To keep it challenging for the humans, I think increasing the threat from Scotland to force the English to keep a strong military presence there would work (as well as being fun and historical).

sedna17
May 14, 2009, 12:15 PM
So I tuned up the barb difficulty in Scotland and increased the English spawn area to include most of Normandy.

As luck would have it, I still only got Calais on flip because France happened not to settle the rest of Normandy. I pacified Wales and built a strong castle in York and then forgot about the Scots, who periodically send stacks down to die on the walls of York (one time they made a beeline straight for my Welsh Iron, which was a bit disconcerting). Unfortunately, both the French and the Burgundians declared war on me, and starting attacking Calais -- so much for any help in the Hundred Year's War. Spain declared war on me too, and actually attacked me from their settlement in the Spanish Netherlands (that worked well this time).

It's about 1215 now and unlike King John, I am finally winning the war in France. My English cities are developed enough to churn out plenty of troops, and I will soon take Paris -- my first conquered French city. If France collapses and I can get peace with Burgundy or Spain then I will make 1450 easily. If I have to deal Burgundy a military loss before they will see reason and make peace... then things could turn into a very long and ugly slog. Yay, history?

P.S. Here's the new English UHV as I currently have it coded based on Verily's suggestions.

jessiecat
May 14, 2009, 04:39 PM
Does the new UHV require that you actually have a city in Scotland and in Wales? In previous games I've found that the barb stack turtles in Northern Scotland and never attacks a strong Edinburgh with a strong castle and a few arbelests. I think I counted over 50 of them just sitting there once. And how does all this military conquest affect your tech rate? Surely being first to the Industrial Revolution is going to a bit harder now.

jessiecat
May 14, 2009, 04:42 PM
Does the new UHV require that you actually have a city in Scotland and in Wales? In previous games I've found that the barb stack turtles in Northern Scotland and never attacks a strong Edinburgh with a strong castle and a few arbelests. I think I counted over 50 of them just sitting there once. And how does all this military conquest affect your tech rate? Surely being first to the Industrial Revolution is going to a bit harder now.

BTW. My UHV proposed changes are currently in a separate file in the RFCE folder. Will the rest of the UHV conditions for each civ be altered in the next version?

sedna17
May 14, 2009, 04:58 PM
Does the new UHV require that you actually have a city in Scotland and in Wales? In previous games I've found that the barb stack turtles in Northern Scotland and never attacks a strong Edinburgh with a strong castle and a few arbelests. I think I counted over 50 of them just sitting there once. And how does all this military conquest affect your tech rate? Surely being first to the Industrial Revolution is going to a bit harder now.

Yes, you must have a city in Wales and Scotland. I might make "Wales" extend one more tile south, just so people don't accidentally settle just outside. The barbs turtling in Scotland was really a bug with setting the initial AI for those barbs. It is now fixed, so they will be more aggressive.

BTW. My UHV proposed changes are currently in a separate file in the RFCE folder. Will the rest of the UHV conditions for each civ be altered in the next version?

Short answer: no. I put that file there so people (me included) had it as a handy reference for testing some of these UHVs. New UHVs take a little time to code/document/test. I prefer to have some play-test reports for some of these before going through all that -- although in the case of just adjusting the years on a UHV it's obviously quite easy and quick to make the change. Probably the next version will include just a few more Civs with new UHVs.

Verily
May 14, 2009, 10:55 PM
Does the new UHV require that you actually have a city in Scotland and in Wales? In previous games I've found that the barb stack turtles in Northern Scotland and never attacks a strong Edinburgh with a strong castle and a few arbelests. I think I counted over 50 of them just sitting there once. And how does all this military conquest affect your tech rate? Surely being first to the Industrial Revolution is going to a bit harder now.

Not so much. You fall behind early on, but the French territories end up being a major economic boon later on. In my game, I reached the Industrial Revolution around 1720, still significantly abreast of my nearest competitor (Austria, unusual in itself, but Poland had maybe grown too large with expanding into ex-Moscow to tech quickly).

jessiecat
May 15, 2009, 06:40 AM
Yes, you must have a city in Wales and Scotland. I might make "Wales" extend one more tile south, just so people don't accidentally settle just outside. The barbs turtling in Scotland was really a bug with setting the initial AI for those barbs. It is now fixed, so they will be more aggressive.
Funny thing about those barbs. When I started a game today as England, the barbs captured Edinburgh from the Norse before I got the chance. When I did take it later it only had 2 guisarmes in it. After that not a single barb appeared for the rest of the game. Figure that one out.:confused:

sedna17
May 25, 2009, 11:29 AM
Right, so I hope to release a new test version tomorrow.

I've experimented with putting Spain back to a 1085 AD start and expanding their spawn zone a bit, and I like it. Here's how things go down as of now:

Cordoba rises (711). Capitol at Cordoba, flips Tangier+Valencia and has two more settlers. Normally flips some barb axemen as well, this sets up a pretty powerful Caliphate of Cordoba.

Toledo spawns just before Cordoba. The northern Christian kingdoms spawn about the same time: Leon {Leon}, Santiago de Compostela (or La Coruna) {Galicia}, Burgos {Castilla}, Zaragoza {Aragon}. These are mostly all the same group indies, so if you attack one, you attack them all. I know the Christian kingdoms squabbled amongst themselves, but obviously these are weak indies and need all the help they can get. There's not a lot of incentive to attack them right now, except Toledo now encroaches a bit more on Cordoba, and you need to keep that barley for the first UHV.

Spain spawns in 1085, centered at Madrid (we can make room by moving Toledo a little West and South), and acquiring Leon, Burgos, and Toledo but not Zaragoza/Coruna. Stability penalty for neighbors rising has been increased, so the combination of Spain/Portugal in quick succession hurts Cordoba.

I've played the Cordoban side to about 1300. The new UHVs are coded as:

1) Cordoba largest city in 1000 AD
2) Build Alhambra, Mezquita, Gardens of Al-Andalus.
3) Don't lose a city to Spain/Portugal before 1500 AD.

1) plays about the same (i.e. reasonably challenging but quite doable). 2) I just *barely* missed, when the Arabs beat me to La Mezquita by two turns, so that's quite possible. 3) is probably easy for the humans to fulfill, but Spain starts off with some better firepower now, so they almost took Valencia from me in their first war.

micbic
May 25, 2009, 11:49 AM
I totally agree with the new model, one point: When does Portugal spawn (original date?) ?

sedna17
May 25, 2009, 01:56 PM
Currently Portugal still spawns at the same date.

AnotherPacifist
May 25, 2009, 02:41 PM
Three words: raze the independents. :lol:

(Just like razing Inverness, Frankfurt, Marseilles and Bordeaux will do to their respective prospective owners)

sedna17
May 25, 2009, 02:53 PM
Hey, if that inspires the human to conquer the entire Iberian peninsular as Cordoba, good on them. The AI, naturally, does not. I think that the UHV goals are reasonably demanding enough that the additional effort required to raze all those cities makes it a worthwhile prize.

jessiecat
May 25, 2009, 04:38 PM
Hey, if that inspires the human to conquer the entire Iberian peninsular as Cordoba, good on them. The AI, naturally, does not. I think that the UHV goals are reasonably demanding enough that the additional effort required to raze all those cities makes it a worthwhile prize.

A couple of suggestions. Pamplona for Navarra is a much more realistic historical flip, as it was Christian from the start, rather than Zaragoza which continued in Muslim hands until conquered by Aragon in 1118.

The UHVs look quite doable except for getting the Gardens of Al Andalus. Teching quick enough to get it has seemed pretty difficult in test games I've done. Could we make it available a bit earlier?

A couple of Berber cav at Tangier would be useful for exploring, to help their start there and also to help fight off the barb surge (which is a little too strong I think). We should encourage the early Cordoban settlement of Morocco if we can.

Also. Have you been able to fix the early stability problem with Arabia?

rob-art1985
May 26, 2009, 06:27 AM
I have some replies about independant/flipping cities:

I think, the decision to kick Augsburg and found a new city flipping to germany is :thumbsup:. But Ulm?? I don't know... I like to found a city along the rhine, maybe Freiburg or Basel. But with Ulm and the Burgundians at the other side, the Rhinecity is more destructive.
What about Nürnberg, Leipzig or Trier as flipping cities?

And to refresh an old chapter: I am pro Salzburg (flipping to Austria). I think, it should be no problem, to set some ressources in the map, to enhance the land around salzburg

Michael Vick
May 26, 2009, 07:16 PM
I say Trier or Koln if we're going for something on the Rhine. Here's another idea though, what if we have Munich already there and flip? It's a pretty important city, yet it never gets founded. Maybe we could have some more resources there too besides the salt.

Michael Vick
May 26, 2009, 09:57 PM
Right, so I hope to release a new test version tomorrow.

I've experimented with putting Spain back to a 1085 AD start and expanding their spawn zone a bit, and I like it. Here's how things go down as of now:

Cordoba rises (711). Capitol at Cordoba, flips Tangier+Valencia and has two more settlers. Normally flips some barb axemen as well, this sets up a pretty powerful Caliphate of Cordoba.

Toledo spawns just before Cordoba. The northern Christian kingdoms spawn about the same time: Leon {Leon}, Santiago de Compostela (or La Coruna) {Galicia}, Burgos {Castilla}, Zaragoza {Aragon}. These are mostly all the same group indies, so if you attack one, you attack them all. I know the Christian kingdoms squabbled amongst themselves, but obviously these are weak indies and need all the help they can get. There's not a lot of incentive to attack them right now, except Toledo now encroaches a bit more on Cordoba, and you need to keep that barley for the first UHV.

Spain spawns in 1085, centered at Madrid (we can make room by moving Toledo a little West and South), and acquiring Leon, Burgos, and Toledo but not Zaragoza/Coruna. Stability penalty for neighbors rising has been increased, so the combination of Spain/Portugal in quick succession hurts Cordoba.

I've played the Cordoban side to about 1300. The new UHVs are coded as:

1) Cordoba largest city in 1000 AD
2) Build Alhambra, Mezquita, Gardens of Al-Andalus.
3) Don't lose a city to Spain/Portugal before 1500 AD.

1) plays about the same (i.e. reasonably challenging but quite doable). 2) I just *barely* missed, when the Arabs beat me to La Mezquita by two turns, so that's quite possible. 3) is probably easy for the humans to fulfill, but Spain starts off with some better firepower now, so they almost took Valencia from me in their first war.

Oh boy, where to start...?

Michael Vick
May 26, 2009, 10:05 PM
Lots of issues... why Burgos? I get that it was the head of Castille or whatever, but it's really kind of a useless city with no natural resources. In my game playing as Cordoba the Spanish started the game with their capitol at A Coruna, but then again I did found Cuenca on the Madrid tile so that might have affected it. Also, Spain starting with Madrid as their capital? That's rather inaccurate. If we must have Burgos then put THAT as their capital, not Madrid. If not Burgos then Toledo should be the capitol. Can we code it so that Spain spawns on Toledo? Madrid was a very minor town until Phillip II moved the court there.
And now why is Toledo even further away from Madrid??? Toledo is too far West, Madrid too far East. Now that I look at it there are many things wrong about this area...:( Toledo is on the North bank of the Tagus, Madrid is not on the Tagus at all, it should be farther North, yet further North is the Duero River, it shouldn't come into contact with that either, hmmm. Why are these mountains here? there are some hills to the North of Madrid on the Duero but...
Ok, I don't agree with much of the map in this area. Look, here is something I came up with. Changed it up just a bit. Changed the two rivers slightly (keeping into consideration the map is angled), moved the proper place for Madrid Northwest, Moved Toledo Northeast to original spot. Moved Leon 1 tile up to coincide with changes made to the Duero. Also, the spawning location for Zaragoza I think should be 1 tile North. Consider this? If you go with it, I'll make the city name map for the area.:)

EDIT:Those black smudges around Madrid are where the mountains used to be, the Madrid tile is a hill, the tile to the right is a plain.

jessiecat
May 27, 2009, 03:14 AM
Michael. See my post in the playtesting feedback thread.:)

sedna17
Jun 01, 2009, 09:33 PM
I'm continuing the discussion of Spain here, so as not to derail the play-testing threads' debates about other civs.

It's a deal.:goodjob:

@Sedna. We have an agreement. There will be peace in our time.[party]

As I understand it, your proposal is that Spain spawn at the location of Toledo. As I explained before, it is not possible to do this without a major re-write of the spawn code, which is not going to happen. If Spain spawns at the location of Toledo, it will delete Toledo (which Spain could then re-found from scratch, I suppose, but then I question the wisdom of having it as an indy city). If Spain spawns elsewhere, the AI will just found a capitol on the spot. If Spain spawns without any Settlers, then the capitol will be chosen from one of the cities that flip -- but that completely breaks the RFC mechanism that you start with at least one settler for your capitol (and if all the other cities had been razed by barbs or the AI, then Spain would die on spawn).

If you insist on Toledo as the capitol, then it will have to NOT exist as an independent city. I'm not quite sure why you are so opposed to Madrid, since it was the capitol for a large portion of the mod, but whatevs.

The rest of the changes: the positions of Leon, Pamplona & A Corunna and the removal of Zaragoza and Burgos are fine.

Verily
Jun 01, 2009, 10:37 PM
Porto should actually be north of the Duoro/Duero. I propose moving the Wine southwest onto the tile where "Porto" is on Vick's map in order to encourage settlement on a correct location of Porto (which conveniently also gets the Pigs into the BFC and has less overlap with other cities and less ocean, making it overall a better city-site anyway).

Michael Vick
Jun 01, 2009, 11:45 PM
Yes, I agree with Verily.

@Sedna: I don't understand what you mean by a "complete rewrite" of the codes...
Listen, play a game as Germany, and build Wien exactly where Austria spawns. It will flip to them as their capitol, no problem. Why can't we have this for Spain?

If this still doesn't work out I propose going back to the 720 start, no additional work on the code required and the player gets more freedom to choose where the cities are built, no more arguing about where each city starts, blah blah blah...

jessiecat
Jun 02, 2009, 12:22 AM
Yes, I agree with Verily.

@Sedna: I don't understand what you mean by a "complete rewrite" of the codes...
Listen, play a game as Germany, and build Wien exactly where Austria spawns. It will flip to them as their capitol, no problem. Why can't we have this for Spain?

If this still doesn't work out I propose going back to the 720 start, no additional work on the code required and the player gets more freedom to choose where the cities are built, no more arguing about where each city starts, blah blah blah...

The best way to do it, and easiest to code, is have Spain start in 1080 as now with 2 settlers. It founds Leon and flips the indy cities of Toledo and Pamplona. Then, with its 2nd. settler founds another city where it likes.
If the human player wants to transfer the capital to Toledo later then that's up to them isn't it.?

3Miro
Jun 02, 2009, 07:19 AM
Yes, I agree with Verily.

@Sedna: I don't understand what you mean by a "complete rewrite" of the codes...
Listen, play a game as Germany, and build Wien exactly where Austria spawns. It will flip to them as their capitol, no problem. Why can't we have this for Spain?

If this still doesn't work out I propose going back to the 720 start, no additional work on the code required and the player gets more freedom to choose where the cities are built, no more arguing about where each city starts, blah blah blah...

The way all civ capitals work is as follows:
1. On the first turn of the spawn, found one city (on the spot of the capital) and since it is the only city owned, it auomatically becomes the capital.
2. All other cities flip/are being build.

In the case when there is already a city at the spawn location, the AI tries to found a city elsewhere. If it succeeds in one turn, that city would become the capital (not the originally intended capital). If a lot of cities flip before the AI can build one city, then the capital is chosen among all the available cities by looking at the largest city available.

If you found Wien and upon Austrian spawn that becomes their capital, well it is accidental. There is currently no way to guarantee that.

Michael Vick
Jun 02, 2009, 06:12 PM
I see what you're saying. Well you could give toledo a big population... but that really wouldn't sit well, all the civs founding cites and then Spain just taking Toledo...
The problem we're having is that it doesn't feel right in the game to "build" a city that historically existed a long time before that. That was the problem with spawning with Madrid, that is the problem with spawning on and "building" Toledo, and that is the problem with your suggestion of spawning on Leon in 1080.

Right now I'd like to suggest two possibilities.
1. We could revert to the 720 spawn but I'm the only one that likes that.

2. I guess Leon would be fine, but a few points:

Spain's flip zone should include Galicia, Asturias, and Castille. Leave out Navarre and Aragon. They were seperate in history and they were only united a couple hundred years later. I believe that early Spain in this game represents the Crown of Castille, no?

-Spain spawns at Leon (1 tile North of it's current position) with two settlers, and three catholic missionaries, then the military units.
-Cities that flip to it will be the Kingdom of Castille. Toledo, Santiago de Compostela, and maybe a city in Portugal to give it water access. (Porto?)
-Indy cities that will be there but WON'T flip are Pamplona, Zaragoza, and Barcelona. These will represent the Kingdoms of Navarre and Aragon.
-The locations of all of these cities are shown in above screenshots.
-Their flip zone will run along the River Tagus, that will be it's border with Al-Andalus. The North-South strip of tiles that includes the horse, the coal, and the hill tagged as Bilbao, starting at the forested hill under the horse and running North, that will be the Eastern edge of the flip zone and Spain's border with Pamplona.
NOTE: this is all only possible with the new terrain suggestion in my screenshots. In no way does it make any sense otherwise. :)

Michael Vick
Jun 03, 2009, 10:11 AM
Ok, I think going back to 720 would be a good option but here's one more look at 1080. This would be the scenario described if Spain spawned at Leon and with all the requirements mentioned in the last post.

This is actually like, the IDEAL situation though, I mean I don't expect the AI to come out with this result ever but... well this just a look at what the area SHOULD look like in 1080. :D Of course, the indies will all be there, but Cordoba wouldn't always necessarily conquer toledo, Zaragoza and settle the Madrid tile. ;) Morocco was done with worldbuilder and I used the new name maps I made which I hope will be included next version. Yes Jessiecat, that's Tangier on the Northern tip of Morocco.;)

Wessel V1
Jun 03, 2009, 11:44 AM
I won't discuss where Tangier should be, since I give the city away whenever my economy asks for it.:p What I find interesting though, is the 3rd picture. Is it that necessary to build a fence around the Garden?:D

Back to the topic now. Moscow's first UHV has to be changed, since it's start has been delayed. "Reconquer the lost Kievan empire from the Mongolians", does that sound interesting? Or maybe, ensure there are no barbarian cities east of x by 1450 AD, or whatever is more appropriate.

Michael Vick
Jun 03, 2009, 03:04 PM
Of course I had to build a fence, the Arabians got jealous and they kept coming to try and steal the flowers.
However, I am glad you brought up the gardens, see that segment of a river I put under Granada? That's not supposed to be there. the reason it IS there, is that the game would not allow me to build the gardens in that city otherwise. It worked fine in the other cities, just not Granada, the city that the gardens are actually supposed to be in. I tried troubleshooting for a while, tampering with resources, population, eventually, putting a river there solved the problem. :confused:

But back to the reason I made the screenshots, what do you all think of the setup?

Samsa
Jun 05, 2009, 06:03 AM
Hello again :)

I'm continue the discussion about spains spawn date. Since my last post was a bit wierd and got misunderstood. The new spawn date (1080) represents a turn in the reconquista since the spanish handled it to conquer stratetic important cities unlike before.
I thought its not in the spirit of the mod to let spains spawn shoot down cordoba. It has more like a real development between those two. But also the 720 spawn date is far to early, cause as someone mentioned there was no real "spanish identity" they understood themself as visigoths.
Concluding this it may be more accurate to set spains spawn date to the first real "spanish identity". I don't really know when this would be, but there Kingdom of Castille is a good hint imho. Maybe their decision to establish Leon as their capital.

(hope this post clears something, to make my thoughts accessable :D)

Michael Vick
Jun 05, 2009, 12:07 PM
Good idea, Samsa
The Kingdom of Leon was officially founded in 910. We could have them found the capital at Leon, and then have Santiago de Compostela and a city further South on the coast like Porto flip to them. That would be a fairly accurate depiction of their territory. The rest of Iberia would look the same but the spawn zone would just have to be smaller. They'd need about three settlers total, some missionaries, crossbowmen, and long swordsmen, maybe two or three lancers. We're not going to give them all of Iberia on the flip like we do now, but they atleast need the firepower to get some kind of expansion going, enough for the AI to overtake Cordoba, but not too soon.

910 is a good date because they are now somewhat unified and are thought of as a unified Iberian kingdom. Not necessarily Spanish, that term came a bit later, but Iberian and Catholic. Also it's earlier so now Cordoba has some time to recover before Portugal spawns. Ok... What do you think?

Samsa
Jun 05, 2009, 12:15 PM
Perfect, you just put my thoughts in the right shape. Even your proposals seem to be pretty fair in the way of balance and historical accuracy.

Michael Vick
Jun 05, 2009, 01:08 PM
Now we need Jessiecat to agree, and we also need Sedna to show his face for once... ;)
so he can approve of this and maybe put it in the next version.

sedna17
Jun 05, 2009, 01:41 PM
Now we need Jessiecat to agree, and we also need Sedna to show his face for once... ;)
so he can approve of this and maybe put it in the next version.

Despite your involvement in this plan, it may have some merit :p

I'll plan to put a 910 start along these lines in the next version for people to try out (unless Jessiecat protests too much). I predict the Spanish AI will have much the same difficulty in collapsing Cordoba.

Briefly, the main objections to the 1085 start are:
1) It's too easy/quick for the human collapse Cordoba. This is not a negative point historically. The collapse of the Caliphate in 1031 is nicely modeled in RFC by collapsing into independent cities. The problem is that indies are rather weak, so the rest of the reconquest is not very exciting for the human to play.
2) Too many cities flip on spawn. I agree, this is not ideal. The 910 start solves this, but it could alternatively be improved in the 1085 start.
3) Cordoba can weaken Spain by destroying the northern independents and possibly launch a direct attack on Spain's spawn point, killing them. Actually, this is rather hard to achieve while also getting the UHVs (at least if the indies are made a little buffer).

In RFC Civs respawn in a different box than they spawn originally. Up until now, we hadn't coded non-overlapping respawn zones, so we had respawns happen in the starting spawn box. I've fixed this now, so respawns can/will happen in a different zone. A couple examples of this: England re-spawns just in Great Britain (no France territories), Cordoba re-spawns mostly in North Africa with just a small slice of southern Spain to represent the Almoravids/Almohads, Byzantium re-spawns just in Greece.

Coupling this with date-specific probabilities to re-spawn (as has been suggested, although not yet implemented), and you get a little more flexibility to "re-use" civs.

So, my vision for Iberia would be to keep Cordoban stability rather low, so that Cordoba collapses into independent Muslim cities around the time Portugal rises (whether Spain comes just before this or not). Spain can take over these indy cities, but watch out -- if you over-extend yourself you'll get Cordoba re-rising and snagging some of your southern possessions. Of course, a human playing Cordoba can be much more focused on stability/defense and survive the rising Christian tide.

Michael Vick
Jun 05, 2009, 02:05 PM
Maybe the 1080 start COULD be saved, but I'm remembering now that was your idea. Thus, it should be scrapped. :p
Just kidding, I think the 1080 start is impossible because of the issue of where the capitol would be.

I'm actually very glad Samsa brought this idea up, I think it's a perfect spawn time for Spain. The 910 start simplifies the spawn situation, less outrageous flip zones, not as many units, and the player gets to time to build a little and get organized before the taking the first major steps of the reconquista. Give your modder's stamp of approval and I'll work on providing a screenshot to finalize the issue.

sedna17
Jun 05, 2009, 02:43 PM
I think you and Samsa have already provided the outlines of a 910 start. If you want to make more detailed recommendations, feel free -- but I'm not necessarily going to implement every little detail the way you suggest, so it's your decision if it's worth your time.

Michael Vick
Jun 05, 2009, 03:53 PM
I guess we have, well then...

The most important changes for the next version in Iberia are
- A 910 start, as described,
-Cities positioned in new places, as described in older posts,
-Even though we're not going for the later start I think we should still include the cities from the other Christian Kingdoms - Pamplona(Navarre), Zaragoza(Aragon), have them spawn with Christianity, again, don't have them flip to Spain.
-Fix this problem where I can't build the Gardens of Al-Andalus on the granada tile.
-Eliminate Burgos from the picture

jessiecat
Jun 05, 2009, 04:17 PM
For what its worth, I'd rather we just returned to the 720 start much as before. It seems the best to me despite all the debates about alternatives. BTW Why is it so important to build the Gardens in Granada? Just because of the picture? In fact why should a specific wonder need to be built in its historic location anyway? Historical prettiness? It's just a name. Does San Marco always have to be built in Venice or Notre Dame in Paris? Does it really matter at all in gameplay?:confused:

EDIT @Sedna. I only protested because the 1085 start with too many cities turned out so badly. As I clearly demonstrated it was just too easy to collapse the other as Spain or Cordoba. So the 910 start with only a couple of cities might work much better. I'll wait and see how it play-tests before forming an opinion. One point though. I hope Cordoba just doesn't start unstable and stays that way. That might end up as unplayable as well as totally unhistoric. Can't we just code in instability from the Portugese spawn date instead?

Michael Vick
Jun 05, 2009, 04:42 PM
No, but I go for the "historic prettiness" sometimes. I was just wondering, do the gardens in this mod require river access?

jessiecat
Jun 05, 2009, 05:10 PM
No, but I go for the "historic prettiness" sometimes. I was just wondering, do the gardens in this mod require river access?

No, it doesn't. And yes I sometimes go for "historical prettiness" myself sometimes. I just finished a UHV victory as Venice where I built Marco Polos Embassy, the San Marco Basilica and Leonardos Inventions all in Venice with the Medici Bank built in Florence. Very satisfying.:p
BTW As I said in the edited post above, I would support a 910 start as long there are only a couple of indy cities and Cordoba isn't unstable from the beginning but gets unstable after Portugal spawns.

Michael Vick
Jun 05, 2009, 07:28 PM
Well I know that you sometimes play as Cordoba so next time you do try going for some "historic prettiness" and build the gardens in Granada. See if you can tell me what the problem is.

sedna17
Jun 05, 2009, 09:49 PM
Actually, I think the gardens probably require fresh water. The code was copied over from the Hanging Gardens, so up until the last version or so it required an aqueduct, which was impossibly late in our game. So I changed that, but didn't necessarily change fresh water tag. And I probably won't.

civmademepoor
Jun 05, 2009, 11:59 PM
If I may, I think while it not be ideal or likely to build the Gardens in Granada, it should certainly be possible.

The historian in me pushes me away from a certain Spanish Iberia. Until 1400 Spain should be trying its utmost to kill Cordoba. When I play Spain, seeing Cordoba collapse is both satisfying as the player, but soul-crushing (ok, I exaggerate) as the historian. The capture of Seville and Cordoba should not mean that the other Cordoban cities become independent. While that may be accurate for a chunk of Moorish history strictly speaking, Spain needs intelligent, even if it's AI, opposition to the Catholic conquest of Iberia.

FWIW, I prefer an earlier to a later start for Spain, but it should stay the hell out of France until it controls Iberia.

onedreamer
Jun 06, 2009, 05:55 AM
Just wondering if you know of this mod: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=271162

sedna17
Jun 06, 2009, 02:11 PM
The historian in me pushes me away from a certain Spanish Iberia. Until 1400 Spain should be trying its utmost to kill Cordoba. When I play Spain, seeing Cordoba collapse is both satisfying as the player, but soul-crushing (ok, I exaggerate) as the historian. The capture of Seville and Cordoba should not mean that the other Cordoban cities become independent. While that may be accurate for a chunk of Moorish history strictly speaking, Spain needs intelligent, even if it's AI, opposition to the Catholic conquest of Iberia.


But the human is always going to be able to collapse Cordoba way ahead of "schedule" if they wish to focus on it. I'm sure that, from the 720 AD start, someone like AnotherPacifist could collapse Cordoba well before 1000 AD -- at least starting in 1085 we know the human won't be able to collapse Cordoba before that! The fact of the matter is, the AI is bad at war, and the human is good. Couple that with the fact that in RFC, taking a few cities (particularly if one the capitol) is almost always enough to collapse someone...

If we want the human to not collapse Cordoba early, there are a couple of options: 1) use barbarians (not sure what would be historically appropriate and geographically possible 2) Give a first UHV that is completely at odds with conquering Cordoba quickly.

Michael Vick
Jun 06, 2009, 04:12 PM
Actually, I think the gardens probably require fresh water. The code was copied over from the Hanging Gardens, so up until the last version or so it required an aqueduct, which was impossibly late in our game. So I changed that, but didn't necessarily change fresh water tag. And I probably won't.

But if the Gardens are IN Granada it should be possible to build them. I understand not guaranteeing historical accuracy but denying it? Could you please change the fresh water tag? :(

jessiecat
Jun 06, 2009, 04:44 PM
But if the Gardens are IN Granada it should be possible to build them. I understand not guaranteeing historical accuracy but denying it? Could you please change the fresh water tag? :(

I think you're mistaken. As the person who suggested the Gardens of Al Andalus in the first place I can tell you it is NOT supposed to represent the Generalife Gardens near the Alhambra in Granada. Did you assume that? Just because the picture comes from there it doesn't mean those gardens at all.
What the wonder is supposed to represent is the Muslim Agricultural Revolution in Al Andalus in the 9th-10thC where great advances in agronomy and irrigation helped transform the region into one of great fertility and high yield cropping which introduced many new fruits and vegetables to Europe. Like citrus fruits, pomegranates, aubergine, courgettes, etc. etc. etc. If you have travelled through Andalusia recently you will have noticed their vast irrigation networks which still exist today.
It certainly never meant anything to do with Granada itself nor is there any reason at all that it should be built in that city. Sorry, but you seem to have completely misunderstood what the wonder is supposed to be.;)

ZachScape
Jun 06, 2009, 05:05 PM
Just a minor text bug:

In the Krak des Chevaliers pedia, it says:
Free walls and castle in very conquered city.

Michael Vick
Jun 06, 2009, 08:36 PM
Ohhh, well I thought it was refering to the Palacio de Generalife because of the picture when you build it, that's the same picture on wikipedia for it. Haha sorry.

Anyway, are we gonna do the 910 start next version?

ZachScape
Jun 06, 2009, 11:02 PM
I think if a 910 amounts for a big deal, you might as well go for a 1800 start version. But just you may want to stick with the same units and buildings as does Rhye's 600 start (so I doubt this post won't be relevant for months, if not ever) But a 1800 could lead through to the 21st century, but that seems like a major project, but it's not without reason.
3 'World Wars' within a 200 year period, along with a variety of options for spawns. Off the top of my mind, I see the main ones as Italy and Germany first and foremost. With Netherlands, Ireland, Poland, Serbia, Greece, Ukraine, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, and Baltics. With starters of Britain, France, Russia, Portugal, Austria, Spain, Scandinavia, and the Ottoman Empire.

But this seems like too much of a big deal now that I type it out. Brand new Units, coding, empires, forget about it.

The Turk
Jun 06, 2009, 11:49 PM
Hi, everyone, this my first post in a while, and I was wondering how this mod is coming along and if you guys finally have your first release and if not how soon will it be done? Love your work! :)

Michael Vick
Jun 07, 2009, 12:15 AM
I think if a 910 amounts for a big deal, you might as well go for a 1800 start version. But just you may want to stick with the same units and buildings as does Rhye's 600 start (so I doubt this post won't be relevant for months, if not ever) But a 1800 could lead through to the 21st century, but that seems like a major project, but it's not without reason.
3 'World Wars' within a 200 year period, along with a variety of options for spawns. Off the top of my mind, I see the main ones as Italy and Germany first and foremost. With Netherlands, Ireland, Poland, Serbia, Greece, Ukraine, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Finland, and Baltics. With starters of Britain, France, Russia, Portugal, Austria, Spain, Scandinavia, and the Ottoman Empire.

But this seems like too much of a big deal now that I type it out. Brand new Units, coding, empires, forget about it.

I meant for Spain. Spain will spawn in 910 AD. Did you read any of the earlier posts? I agree that starting the mod at 910 is insane and ridiculous... haha:lol:
@The Turk, go to the thread called RFCEurope Files, it's the very second post in the thread. I recommend England.

jessiecat
Jun 07, 2009, 12:36 AM
Ohhh, well I thought it was refering to the Palacio de Generalife because of the picture when you build it, that's the same picture on wikipedia for it. Haha sorry.

Anyway, are we gonna do the 910 start next version?

As I said in earlier posts (1586 and 1588), I support the 910 start at Leon, flipping A Coruna with one settler, and Cordoba starting as normal but getting unstable after Portugal spawns.

Sorry about the misunderstanding over the Gardens. Think of it as similiar to Leonardo's Inventions or Magna Carta, as a wonder representing an advancement rather than a particular city.:)

ZachScape
Jun 07, 2009, 11:41 AM
I meant for Spain. Spain will spawn in 910 AD. Did you read any of the earlier posts? I agree that starting the mod at 910 is insane and ridiculous... haha:lol:

Nah, I didn't read them. I was actually surprised to see this mourning that this wasn't the RFCE Playtesting Feedback Thread :cringe:. But I'm just saying for a next production/same map opportunity. RFCE started with a post of: Hey! Europe is where it's at.

MizhGun
Jun 09, 2009, 04:40 AM
Some words and suggestions on improving the mod concerning Kievan Rus :)
[based on release of 26 May]
It would be nice to:
- change purple colour of Kievan Rus to white or red
- make a multiplayer version of the mod
- replace Taganrog (now it’s in Zaporozhe) and Astrakhan (now it’s on Don) to their appropriate locations
- add Central Russian Upland to the map
- expand map to
a) the Urals or even to India
b) North America to show its colonization
c) the Caucasus and north shore of the Caspian Sea with independent Baku, Tbilisi and Yerevan spawn gradually
- add Novgorod as a playable civ
- add Chernigov and Galitsko-Volyn as well as Vladimir-Suzdal duchy as independent states for later spawn Grand Duchy of Moscow to expand
- shift Moscow spawn date from 1323 to 1147 (Moscow’s found date) to have some time for a player to forcejoin the nearby independent states to Grand Duchy of Moscow instead of peaceful joining of them.
- add nomads as it released in warlords scenario “Genghis Rhan” as barbs for Slavic areas and Byzantium, like in RFC: celts for western Europe, zulu imps for Afrika and dog soldiers for America.
- remove Korsun from the Crimea
- add unique galley “Ladia” and unique Slavic axeman to all Slavic duchies.

PSYX and some other folks from civfanatics.ru can help editing the mod as well as adding Russian fonts to the mod, can draw flags for new civs and independent states, provide historical info for Kievan Rus units and nomads roaming in vicinity of these lands, with toponymy and outfit of units as well.

PSYX
Jun 09, 2009, 05:12 AM
Some information about civ: "Kyivan Rus" - cities

Kyivan names:

Bilgorod (980), Biloozero (862 ?), Vasylkiv (988), Vyshgorod (946), Ovruch (977), Izborsk (862), Korosten (945), Kyiv (880 ?), Ladoga (862), Liubech (882), Murom (862), Novgorod (859), Peresichen (922), Peremyshl (980), Pereyaslavl (907), Polotsk (862), Pskov (903), Roden (980 ?), Rostov (862), Smolensk (863 ?), Turiv (980), Cherven (981), Chernihiv (907), Protolche (Zaporizhzhya) (end of 10 century, 1103 ?)

Moskowian names:

Bilgorod - Belgorod,
Biloozero - Beloozero,
Vasylkiv - Vasilev,
Ovruch - Vruchy
Korosten - Iskorosten,
Kyiv - Kiev,
Peresichen - Peresechen,
Turiv - Turov,
Chernihiv - Chernigov

Poland names:

Peremyshl - Przemyśl

Notes:
? - inexact dates
(...) - the dates of foundation

I can add this cities to CityNameHelper_v12 :)

3Miro
Jun 09, 2009, 06:31 AM
Some words and suggestions on improving the mod concerning Kievan Rus :)
[based on release of 26 May]
It would be nice to:
- change purple colour of Kievan Rus to white or red
- make a multiplayer version of the mod
- replace Taganrog (now it’s in Zaporozhe) and Astrakhan (now it’s on Don) to their appropriate locations
- add Central Russian Upland to the map
- expand map to
a) the Urals or even to India
b) North America to show its colonization
c) the Caucasus and north shore of the Caspian Sea with independent Baku, Tbilisi and Yerevan spawn gradually
- add Novgorod as a playable civ
- add Chernigov and Galitsko-Volyn as well as Vladimir-Suzdal duchy as independent states for later spawn Grand Duchy of Moscow to expand
- shift Moscow spawn date from 1323 to 1147 (Moscow’s found date) to have some time for a player to forcejoin the nearby independent states to Grand Duchy of Moscow instead of peaceful joining of them.
- add nomads as it released in warlords scenario “Genghis Rhan” as barbs for Slavic areas and Byzantium, like in RFC: celts for western Europe, zulu imps for Afrika and dog soldiers for America.
- remove Korsun from the Crimea
- add unique galley “Ladia” and unique Slavic axeman to all Slavic duchies.

PSYX and some other folks from civfanatics.ru can help editing the mod as well as adding Russian fonts to the mod, can draw flags for new civs and independent states, provide historical info for Kievan Rus units and nomads roaming in vicinity of these lands, with toponymy and outfit of units as well.

Sorry, but most of what you suggest would not be implemented. We are doing a mod about medieval Europe and nothing outside of Europe would be put in (you can try RFC for a mod covering all of Earth).

- I will look at the colors, those were chosen so that civs can be easily distinguished.
- A multilayer version of the mod is not on the "todo" list. It is nearly impossible to balance under the circumstances and is just too much work.
- The map will not be expanded beyond what it covers now, however, we constantly make updates to the terrain and city names. Coordinate those with micbic.
- According to Wikipedia, Novogorod was independent from 1136AD to 1478AD. It is a relatively short period. Other civs would be included first (if any new civs are included). This will not happen soon.
- We will look at the Moscow spawn date.
- Adding Celt and Native type of players wouldn't help the mod. "Nomadic" nations were never centralized, they consisted of several independent cities and thus are best described as independent.

Again, thanks for the suggestions, but most of what you suggest is not meant to be part of this mod. If you have detailed modifications to the city name maps, or the list of independents, please coordinate those with use. We will incorporate then in the mod. If you have observations on the gamaplay, share those as well.

jessiecat
Jun 09, 2009, 06:56 AM
Double post. See below.

jessiecat
Jun 09, 2009, 07:11 AM
Nice to see you back. I take it you'll be issuing the next versions from now on. Aside from balance considerations there are a couple of things on the to-do list I'd like to address.
1. The Mongol invasions seem overpowered, affecting not only the Kievans and Moscow but Bulgaria and several more. I'm sure we meant them as colourful events not decisive game-stoppers. The same applies to the barbs in Britain, as I posted earlier. Too many for far too long IMO.
2. The issue of points or other incentives for colony-building needs addressing. I'd like to see a similiar score-boost for each colony or project built much as we get points for wonder-building. This might help those players who like long games and score victories.
3. I brought up the issue of culturally-flavoured units recently and suggested some possible art for the Muslim civs elsewhere in these threads. Could you look again at the feasibility of coding this? If it's easy enough we might be able to move on to the Ottomans and Eastern European units as well.
4. There are some better leaderheads in the downloads database. Maybe we can use some of them. As for flags can I suggest we restore the previous Cordoban flag so it matches their button and give their present flag to the Arabs to replace the palm tree we got from CFC?
5. The Crusades events seem pretty lame so far. The human player has no incentive to take part in them and no reward for capturing Jerusalem. Surely we can make them more interesting?
6. The role of the Papacy is still pretty much undeveloped, I know. Will we be looking at more interaction with the Pope and the player similiar to the AP in RFC, ie congresses or Papal Bulls or something? And please stop the Pope from demanding my cities every time I build one.:lol:

PSYX
Jun 09, 2009, 08:03 AM
3Miro

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=8157059 (http://http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=8157059)

I was added topic for adding information and materials from civfanatics.ru

Also, I can add one suggestion, to rename Kiev - to Kyiv. Becouse, Kyiv - is a historical and ukrainian name. Kiev - russian name of Kyiv.

merijn_v1
Jun 09, 2009, 09:20 AM
Some words and suggestions on improving the mod concerning Kievan Rus :)
[based on release of 26 May]
It would be nice to:
- change purple colour of Kievan Rus to white or red
- make a multiplayer version of the mod
- replace Taganrog (now it’s in Zaporozhe) and Astrakhan (now it’s on Don) to their appropriate locations
- add Central Russian Upland to the map
- expand map to
a) the Urals or even to India
b) North America to show its colonization
c) the Caucasus and north shore of the Caspian Sea with independent Baku, Tbilisi and Yerevan spawn gradually
- add Novgorod as a playable civ
- add Chernigov and Galitsko-Volyn as well as Vladimir-Suzdal duchy as independent states for later spawn Grand Duchy of Moscow to expand
- shift Moscow spawn date from 1323 to 1147 (Moscow’s found date) to have some time for a player to forcejoin the nearby independent states to Grand Duchy of Moscow instead of peaceful joining of them.
- add nomads as it released in warlords scenario “Genghis Rhan” as barbs for Slavic areas and Byzantium, like in RFC: celts for western Europe, zulu imps for Afrika and dog soldiers for America.
- remove Korsun from the Crimea
- add unique galley “Ladia” and unique Slavic axeman to all Slavic duchies.

The MOD isn't finished yet. So that's the first thing we want. Then we may create a MP version.
For the map expansion:
Why so far to the east. India isn't a part of Europe. So what European Civ would you place their?
America isn't either a part of Europe. The colonies are projects now.
Those mountains are also to far from Europe. And if they are their, no-one would ever settle their. It's useless. And the loading time will be much longer. And it's already so long.

Novgorod a playable Civ?
I don't know much about Russia, but we already have 2 Russian civs. We have almost too many Civs. And it would be too much coding and it would destroy the Moscowian gameplay.

The MOD start in 500AD. The Celts are destroyed then. And the map stays just Europe IMO.

If those new Slavic UU's comes, all other parts should get some UU's. So IMO that isn't a good idea.

Michael Vick
Jun 09, 2009, 11:37 AM
Some words and suggestions on improving the mod concerning Kievan Rus :)
[based on release of 26 May]
It would be nice to:
- change purple colour of Kievan Rus to white or red
- make a multiplayer version of the mod
- replace Taganrog (now it’s in Zaporozhe) and Astrakhan (now it’s on Don) to their appropriate locations
- add Central Russian Upland to the map
- expand map to
a) the Urals or even to India
b) North America to show its colonization
c) the Caucasus and north shore of the Caspian Sea with independent Baku, Tbilisi and Yerevan spawn gradually
- add Novgorod as a playable civ
- add Chernigov and Galitsko-Volyn as well as Vladimir-Suzdal duchy as independent states for later spawn Grand Duchy of Moscow to expand
- shift Moscow spawn date from 1323 to 1147 (Moscow’s found date) to have some time for a player to forcejoin the nearby independent states to Grand Duchy of Moscow instead of peaceful joining of them.
- add nomads as it released in warlords scenario “Genghis Rhan” as barbs for Slavic areas and Byzantium, like in RFC: celts for western Europe, zulu imps for Afrika and dog soldiers for America.
- remove Korsun from the Crimea
- add unique galley “Ladia” and unique Slavic axeman to all Slavic duchies.

PSYX and some other folks from civfanatics.ru can help editing the mod as well as adding Russian fonts to the mod, can draw flags for new civs and independent states, provide historical info for Kievan Rus units and nomads roaming in vicinity of these lands, with toponymy and outfit of units as well.

Uh oh... the Russians are here... :lol:

Most of this sounds like it would belong in a mod called RFC Russia. One thing though, I do like the slavic axemen idea. If England gets y art for THEIR barbarians why not Russia?
I came here to discuss Spain though, as you might have guessed. I think there was a misunderstanding in the terrain design changes made to the Madrid area. The few tiles above Madrid should be forested hills, not the plains we have now. I looked back at my last screenshots I posted right before the new release and it appears the second time I made it I put plains there. I'm sorry, this is incorrect. If for next version you could refer to the very first screenshot I made of the area...

MizhGun
Jun 10, 2009, 04:49 AM
The MOD isn't finished yet. So that's the first thing we want. Then we may create a MP version.First of all I'd like to say that I was asked to sum up the ideas expressed by russian-speaking folks from civfanatics.ru and post them in this thread for modmakers in English thus I don't share all of these ideas :)
For the map expansion:
Why so far to the east. India isn't a part of Europe. So what European Civ would you place their?
Russia of course :lol: It's an old russian dream to wash boots in the Indian Ocean :lol:
America isn't either a part of Europe. The colonies are projects now. farewell Alaska :(
Those mountains are also to far from Europe. the Urals separate Europe from Asia - so what lies to the west is all Europe!
And if they are their, no-one would ever settle their. It's useless. And the loading time will be much longer. And it's already so long. Agree

Novgorod a playable Civ?
I don't know much about Russia, but we already have 2 Russian civs. We have almost too many Civs. And it would be too much coding and it would destroy the Moscowian gameplay.Alexander Nevsky from Novgorod defeated Swedes on Neva (after the battle he was named Nevsky) and few years later drowned Teutons in the lake. Novgorod was a real power in the region in that times.

Samsa
Jun 10, 2009, 05:58 AM
farewell Alaska :(

Actually i like the idea, and we should implement Alaska as a colony. If u can tell us what Alaska provided :) Can't think of anything else then Fur :confused:


the Urals separate Europe from Asia - so what lies to the west is all Europe!

There are different definitions about the borders of europe and no single one is fully accredited. And this mod is closest to the "von Strahlenberg" definition, the most widely used one. So i think we should stay like this. Anyhow expanding the map east to the Ural, won't affect the gameplay at all. Moscowian russia has a huge land to settle and no other civ will go there anyway. ;)

3Miro
Jun 10, 2009, 07:51 AM
MizhGun, ideas are always welcome, however, most of those cover history or geography that is beyond the scope of the mod.

We actually do need help with the Russias. I don't think people have tested Kiev sufficiently and we have had almost no feedback on Moscow's gameplay. Someone just mentioned that on the last version, Moscow is unplayable.

Also, could you guys look at the city name maps, I for one don't trust a city name map unless it has been done/updated by someone who lives in the region.

jessiecat
Jun 10, 2009, 08:00 AM
MizhGun, ideas are always welcome, however, most of those cover history or geography that is beyond the scope of the mod.

We actually do need help with the Russias. I don't think people have tested Kiev sufficiently and we have had almost no feedback on Moscow's gameplay. Someone just mentioned that on the last version, Moscow is unplayable.

Also, could you guys look at the city name maps, I for one don't trust a city name map unless it has been done/updated by someone who lives in the region.

While I haven't yet tested Moscow since the new spawn date, I have tested Kiev 4 or 5 times since the Mongol hordes were increased. I haven't been able to survive on any occasion, whatever I tried. In every recent game playing as an other civ the AI Kiev and Bulgaria have always been wiped out. In my last game even the Ottomans collapsed. The Mongols are too strong and too numerous, as I've said before.

3Miro
Jun 10, 2009, 09:05 AM
While I haven't yet tested Moscow since the new spawn date, I have tested Kiev 4 or 5 times since the Mongol hordes were increased. I haven't been able to survive on any occasion, whatever I tried. In every recent game playing as an other civ the AI Kiev and Bulgaria have always been wiped out. In my last game even the Ottomans collapsed. The Mongols are too strong and too numerous, as I've said before.

Mongols and other barbs have been nerfed for the next version.

jessiecat
Jun 10, 2009, 10:12 AM
Mongols and other barbs have been nerfed for the next version.

Hurrah!:goodjob: What has struck me as particularly absurd is their strength (12/2), almost that of a knight, while their contemporary equivalents (Konnik 5/3), (Huszar 7/3), (Berber cav 7/3) are much weaker. Even the Arab Ghazi UU (9/3) is at a disadvantage. They should be weighted at no more than 9/2 IMO. That would mean that defending with guisarmes and arbalests would give the player some real chance of survival.

3Miro
Jun 10, 2009, 12:22 PM
Hurrah!:goodjob: What has struck me as particularly absurd is their strength (12/2), almost that of a knight, while their contemporary equivalents (Konnik 5/3), (Huszar 7/3), (Berber cav 7/3) are much weaker. Even the Arab Ghazi UU (9/3) is at a disadvantage. They should be weighted at no more than 9/2 IMO. That would mean that defending with guisarmes and arbalests would give the player some real chance of survival.

Don't get so exited, I only nerfed the Mongols and did not remove them ;)

The Kheshiks are still very powerful (12/2), however, they are fewer. Historically Kiev was destroyed by the Mongols and both Bulgaria and Hungary suffered from them. The way they used to be, Mongols would get all of Ukraine + All of the Balkans + Constantinople + half of Asia Minor, which is ridiculous. Now they would get Kiev.

I am now playing a very good game with Moscow, Kiev was Mongolian and for the first few turns I used all of my Boyars to reclaim Ukraine. Very historically accurate!

Wessel V1
Jun 13, 2009, 04:12 PM
I've tried to rate (most of) the civs, suggestions are welcome. I used this list to evaluate the ratings: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=322753
I've also based the ratings on an average style. If the AI seriously messes things up, then it's not yet on the list.



Burgundy:

Trade: 2 :commerce: Burgundy has access to one or 2 sea ports, and some lands to build towns. They have enough resources to trade. Maintenence costs are very high though, which is an important issue in the first centuries.
Production: 4 :commerce: Lots of productive resources around the capital. The Rhone valley and Toulouse are rather productive too. Important note: all cities can become productive with towns and levees. I've left that part out now.
Culture: 4 :commerce: Because of it's resourceful capital, even better if you settle Besancon, which is SSW, you can get some early wonders. The UP is also powerful for new cities, so I'd give culture 4 or even 5 stars.
Growth: 2 :commerce: Large cities are possible, when the entire valley has farms. Otherwise, the cities stay small. There is not much room for expansion either, you won't get much farther than Barcino, Milan and maybe somewhere between Germany and France.
Starting situation: 2 :commerce: There are some dangerous neighbours very close: Germany and France. The other things seem to be fine, so 2 stars is reasonable.
Overall: 14

Byzantium
Trade: 2 :commerce: Byzantium has large penalties, although there are some possibilities for them to do a decent job. Especially Constantinopolis means a lot to them.
Production: 2 :commerce: Raw production is not bad, but the modifiers are annoying. It's the same story as above: Constantinopolis is the important city.
Culture: 4 :commerce: An early religion, early wonders, Byzantium has it all. However, 4 stars because it's hard to construct all cultural buildings in time because of the poor production.
Growth: 1 :commerce: It takes ages to grow the cities. Anatolia lacks food, and the magical penalties strike again. Don't even try to expand, the cities flip away as soon as you build them, which is a complete waste of the many hammers that you've wasted to build a settler. The only positive note is Constantinopolis (again), that is soon limited by hapiness and health caps.
Starting situation: 5 :commerce: Yes, 5 stars here. I think this is one of the most arguable decisions, that will have to be corrected but this is my opinion. Nothings seems to be wrong when you start; even better, you seem to be a world power. Normalized score says everything, 100,000 points for winning this turn.
Overall: 14

France:
Trade: 4 :commerce: France has access to multiple Atlantic ports. They have lot's of good land, and some resources to trade as well.
Production: 3 :commerce: Paris has high capabilities, but the other cities that you don't have to conquer are not that good for production. Maybe 2 stars is better but it's still very possible to conquer the territory needed to get a high production.
Culture: 3 :commerce: The same deal about the wonders, but France doesn't have the same UP. So, three stars is what they get.
Growth: 4 :commerce: France can hold large, wealthy cities. New territories can be conquered easily thanks to the UP.
Starting situation: 3 :commerce: France has a decent situation. There is some barbarian pressure, Burgundy can declare war early, England can get a food on your land but these things are not so terrifying.
Overall: 17



That's it for now. More will come tomorrow, as it's now 11.10 PM here. Please make suggestions to the list, I'll keep it updated.

3Miro
Jun 13, 2009, 04:36 PM
I've tried to rate (most of) the civs, suggestions are welcome. I used this list to evaluate the ratings: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=322753
I've also based the ratings on an average style. If the AI seriously messes things up, then it's not yet on the list.

That's it for now. More will come tomorrow, as it's now 11.10 PM here. Please make suggestions to the list, I'll keep it updated.

Looks reasonable to me.

One note. People make a lot of comments on the penalties especially for the Byzantines. Tweaking those penalties for our mod is many times easier compared to regular RFC. This is one place where our mod stands out. Pretty much anyone with a text editor should be able to tweak those.

In RFCEurope\Assets\Python, there is a file RFCEBalance.py. You can open this files with NotePad, WordPad or TextPad (the last one would be my choice, but the other two should work just fine). Then you can edit the file and change some numbers to see what effect those would have on gameplay.

A typical modifiers line looks like:

gc.setGrowthModifiers(iByzantium, 300, 100, 150, 100, 100, 2 )

If you change that to

gc.setGrowthModifiers(iByzantium, 150, 100, 150, 100, 100, 2 )

Byzantine cities would grow 2 times faster. There are comments that explain what each number means.

Give it a try.

micbic
Jun 13, 2009, 04:46 PM
@WesselV1: I would make Burgundy's starting situation to 3, since it has the time to get a good slice of land before the Germans spawn (even better, building Basle and Fribourg in time means that they have a well-secured eastern border with them)

BurnEmDown
Jun 13, 2009, 04:54 PM
I think we should start by choosing which civs get the highest rating in each rating, and which civs get the lowest, and then according to that decide on 2\3\4 for all other civs in that category. So for example Poland and Kiev should get 5 in growth, If I'm not mistaken.
It seems a lot of civs will get good starting positions, since aside from eastern Europe there aren't many civs who spawn right outside of other civ's borders (which is frequent in RFC).

Wessel V1
Jun 14, 2009, 04:24 AM
Looks reasonable to me.

One note. People make a lot of comments on the penalties especially for the Byzantines. Tweaking those penalties for our mod is many times easier compared to regular RFC. This is one place where our mod stands out. Pretty much anyone with a text editor should be able to tweak those.

In RFCEurope\Assets\Python, there is a file RFCEBalance.py. You can open this files with NotePad, WordPad or TextPad (the last one would be my choice, but the other two should work just fine). Then you can edit the file and change some numbers to see what effect those would have on gameplay.

A typical modifiers line looks like:

gc.setGrowthModifiers(iByzantium, 300, 100, 150, 100, 100, 2 )

If you change that to

gc.setGrowthModifiers(iByzantium, 150, 100, 150, 100, 100, 2 )

Byzantine cities would grow 2 times faster. There are comments that explain what each number means.

Give it a try.

I've already used these numbers in my calculations, no need to worry.:) I don't mind the penalties either, it's no problem to me. It's just what I think about Byzantium, and I think that 14 stars is very appropriate.

It seems that I cannot use more than 30 images in a post, so I'll either have to spread it or use standard things. I think I'll do the latter one, (***** or +++++)

@ BurnEmDown: That's okay I think. Kiev for example should of course have 5 stars in growth, and the Netherlands 1 star in starting situation.

@micbic: You're right about that, but I think I won't change it. For example, Germany in RFC has 2 stars in starting situation. Frankfurt, Danzig, Anielowka and Budapest are worth much more than those 2 stars, Germany is in fact the only European civ that can work 4 BFC', and I'd say very powerful ones as well. However, the ordinary player probably won't find these locations immediately, and stays relatively small; Burgundy isn't meant to get really huge.

Wessel V1
Jun 14, 2009, 04:28 AM
Burgundy:

Trade: ** Burgundy has access to one or 2 sea ports, and some lands to build towns. They have enough resources to trade. Maintenence costs are very high though, which is an important issue in the first centuries.
Production: **** Lots of productive resources around the capital. The Rhone valley and Toulouse are rather productive too. Important note: all cities can become productive with towns and levees. I've left that part out now.
Culture: **** Because of it's resourceful capital, even better if you settle Besancon, which is SSW, you can get some early wonders. The UP is also powerful for new cities, so I'd give culture 4 or even 5 stars.
Growth: ** Large cities are possible, when the entire valley has farms. Otherwise, the cities stay small. There is not much room for expansion either, you won't get much farther than Barcino, Milan and maybe somewhere between Germany and France.
Starting situation: ** There are some dangerous neighbours very close: Germany and France. The other things seem to be fine, so 2 stars is reasonable.
Overall: 14

Byzantium
Trade: ** Byzantium has large penalties, although there are some possibilities for them to do a decent job. Especially Constantinopolis means a lot to them.
Production: ** Raw production is not bad, but the modifiers are annoying. It's the same story as above: Constantinopolis is the important city.
Culture: **** An early religion, early wonders, Byzantium has it all. However, 4 stars because it's hard to construct all cultural buildings in time because of the poor production.
Growth: * It takes ages to grow the cities. Anatolia lacks food, and the magical penalties strike again. Don't even try to expand, the cities flip away as soon as you build them, which is a complete waste of the many hammers that you've wasted to build a settler. The only positive note is Constantinopolis (again), that is soon limited by hapiness and health caps.
Starting situation: ***** Yes, 5 stars here. I think this is one of the most arguable decisions, that will have to be corrected but this is my opinion. Nothings seems to be wrong when you start; even better, you seem to be a world power. Normalized score says everything, 100,000 points for winning this turn.
Overall: 14

France:
Trade: **** France has access to multiple Atlantic ports. They have lot's of good land, and some resources to trade as well.
Production: *** Paris has high capabilities, but the other cities that you don't have to conquer are not that good for production. Maybe 2 stars is better but it's still very possible to conquer the territory needed to get a high production.
Culture: *** The same deal about the wonders, but France doesn't have the same UP. So, three stars is what they get.
Growth: **** France can hold large, wealthy cities. New territories can be conquered easily thanks to the UP.
Starting situation: *** France has a decent situation. There is some barbarian pressure, Burgundy can declare war early, England can get a food on your land but these things are not so terrifying.
Overall: 17

Arabia:

Trade: **** Everyone except Turkey and Cordoba will hate you. You have lots or rare resources though, and a nice tech rate. Your UB is also nice, it makes your trade routes even more profitable.
Production: ** Only your spawn area is reasonably productive, North Africa is much worse. Serfdom and a farm chain could help a little, but these cities will never compete with the European cities.
Culture: ***** All 3 early religions are present in Jerusalem. Your UP guarantees a massive cultural boost, and some wonders makes everything even better. One of the possible cultural victory candidates.
Growth: ** A huge amount of land to settle, but none of your cities can grow large. Even with farms and wind mills everywhere, your cities stay small.
Starting situation: **** Everything is at least fine, so Arabia has an extraordinary situation. I won't give them 5 stars though, since that's a privelege of Byzantium. AFAIK, no civ in RFC has 5 stars here, and only Byzantium is a fair candidate in my view.

Bulgaria: (I'm not very sure here, this might require some changes. It really depends on early conquests, since Bulgaria is quite weak otherwise)

Trade: ** Bulgaria has access to one sea port: Tomis.You'll probably be Orthodox, so the western civs won't like you very much. Overall commerce is not very bad though, because there are some grasslands that beg for being cottaged. It all depends on Constantinople, again.
Production: *** The core is not very promising, the Byzantine and mountains keep your capacities small. However, there are some possibilities in the west, and also some Byzantine cities.
Culture: ** You are not likely to build many wonders. Your main attraction won't be cultural buildings anyway, but military.
Growth: *** There is some room to expand, and there are some food resources. Greece is where you want to be.
Starting situation: **** You have a decent land, but there are some more opportunities. A quick war against Byzantium can give you a large boost. If you manage to conquer Constantinople early, the possibilities are endless.
Overall: 14

Cordoba: I'll have to play a game with the current version before I can get an opinion about them. Production is 4 stars I think, perhaps even 5 (they have one of the most productive lands with serfdom and farms).


I'll reserve post 1624 for the most actual ratings, and this post for my opinion. I'll include other people's opinions as well on the list.

Wessel V1
Jun 14, 2009, 04:33 AM
Actual ratings:

(Trade, production, culture, growth, starting situation)

Burgundy: 14
**
****
****
**
** / ***

Byzantium: 14
**
**
****
*
*****

France: 17
****
***
***
****
***

Arabia: 17
****
**
*****
**
****

Bulgaria: 14
**
***
**
***
****

More to come today..

The Turk
Jun 15, 2009, 05:14 AM
Hi, I was just wondering if I could test the beta version of this game? This mod is just SUCH a great idea, good work guys:)

Panopticon
Jun 15, 2009, 05:28 AM
The alpha version and patch are available here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=295451

MizhGun
Jun 17, 2009, 06:57 AM
Actually i like the idea, and we should implement Alaska as a colony. If u can tell us what Alaska provided :) Can't think of anything else then Fur :confused: Gold, Oil, Deer, Crab and Fur of course ;)

3Miro
Jun 17, 2009, 07:55 AM
Gold, Oil, Deer, Crab and Fur of course ;)

Remember the mod is Medieval to very early Industrial age. While modern Alaska gives all of those, oil is not a resource for our mod. The question remains:

When did the King Crab industry began (wiki doesn't speak of it historically).

How much Deer was exported (it served as food to the locals, but did they export).

When was the gold first found (if the Russians knew about the gold there, would they have sold it away so cheaply in 1867).

jessiecat
Jun 17, 2009, 08:12 AM
Alaska comes far too late in our mod to be included. Only the Russian fur trade had any importance before 1800. The first gold rush happened near Hope, Alaska in 1896, followed by the famous, and much bigger Klondike Gold Rush in 1898 across the border in the Yukon. The King Crab fisheries only developed off Alaska in the 1970s after Pacific salmon stocks began to decline. And oil is irrelevent to our mod anyway, as you say.:)

youtien
Jun 18, 2009, 12:25 AM
Maybe we can add unique colonial projects for specfic civs, like: Siberia for Russia (Kievan and Moscowan). Add a "Siberia Access" resource.

Also, it seems weird that Arabia can't colonize East Africa at double rate. They have land access (and Red Sea) to east Africa, far quicker than Atlantic Sea.

3Miro
Jun 18, 2009, 08:10 AM
Maybe we can add unique colonial projects for specfic civs, like: Siberia for Russia (Kievan and Moscowan). Add a "Siberia Access" resource.

Also, it seems weird that Arabia can't colonize East Africa at double rate. They have land access (and Red Sea) to east Africa, far quicker than Atlantic Sea.

We can just add colonies that do not require AA.

The Turk
Jun 18, 2009, 08:21 AM
After playing your beta version, I came across a couple things which troubled me:

1. You guys definetly need a longer tech tree, or you need to make techs more expensive, or else within a while you go from the middle ages to the imperial age

2. PLEASE get unique leader heads, it looks so bad to have a weird looking Swedish leader!

3. You guys should (or should have) made africa and the middle east bigger because now the Arabian uhv is SUPER easy (in fact most of the UHV's are easy to get)

4. Try to get culturally unique looking units or because I hate seeing a European looking Arab maceman

But I know you guys are still in your beta version time, and you guys can still change things, so i'm not worried. By the way don't think I think this mod is bad, I 've just labeled things you could do better, but believe me you guys have done an AMAZING JOB and i know it must of taken a lot of time and skilled effort to get this far, good job guys!:)

3Miro
Jun 18, 2009, 09:28 AM
After playing your beta version, I came across a couple things which troubled me:

1. You guys definetly need a longer tech tree, or you need to make techs more expensive, or else within a while you go from the middle ages to the imperial age

2. PLEASE get unique leader heads, it looks so bad to have a weird looking Swedish leader!

3. You guys should (or should have) made africa and the middle east bigger because now the Arabian uhv is SUPER easy (in fact most of the UHV's are easy to get)

4. Try to get culturally unique looking units or because I hate seeing a European looking Arab maceman

But I know you guys are still in your beta version time, and you guys can still change things, so i'm not worried. By the way don't think I think this mod is bad, I 've just labeled things you could do better, but believe me you guys have done an AMAZING JOB and i know it must of taken a lot of time and skilled effort to get this far, good job guys!:)

Wow you got the beta, did you ravel back in time to tell us? ;) We only have a alpha version.

1. The tech rate will probably we slowed down, we just have to find the right balance so that it doesn't make things impossible.

2. We are trying, we just got a new Pope. If you know of any good leaderheads that we can use, please post then and we will include those.

3. The Arabian control is not hard, spreading the Islam should be the hard UHV for them. I will play a game to see how it works.

4. Again we are trying, however, we need graphics files on someone with artistic inclinations.

Thanks for the comments.

jessiecat
Jun 18, 2009, 10:17 AM
Wow you got the beta, did you ravel back in time to tell us? ;) We only have a alpha version.

1. The tech rate will probably we slowed down, we just have to find the right balance so that it doesn't make things impossible.

2. We are trying, we just got a new Pope. If you know of any good leaderheads that we can use, please post then and we will include those.

3. The Arabian control is not hard, spreading the Islam should be the hard UHV for them. I will play a game to see how it works.

4. Again we are trying, however, we need graphics files on someone with artistic inclinations.

Thanks for the comments.

There are several possible leaderheads in the database. I'll look for them now and post them in the art thread. Again with the culturally specific graphics, I've already posted some files for the Arabian and Cordoban units in the Military Design thread (post 58). It should be relatively simply to substitute some of those for the existing units, shouldn't it?

3Miro
Jun 18, 2009, 11:03 AM
There are several possible leaderheads in the database. I'll look for them now and post them in the art thread. Again with the culturally specific graphics, I've already post some files for the Arabian and Cordoban units in the Military Design thread (post 58). It should be relatively simply to substitute some of those for the existing units, shouldn't it?

I don't know. I will see.

merijn_v1
Jun 18, 2009, 11:31 AM
Maybe we can add unique colonial projects for specfic civs, like: Siberia for Russia (Kievan and Moscowan). Add a "Siberia Access" resource.

Also, it seems weird that Arabia can't colonize East Africa at double rate. They have land access (and Red Sea) to east Africa, far quicker than Atlantic Sea.


What does that improve? Siberia isn't the best place to be. It's cold and the only resource it could provide is Fur. I would include it.
And if you meant it for a new UHV for the Moscowian, I think just 1 "colony" isn't good enough.

Samsa
Jun 18, 2009, 12:15 PM
I'm right now playing a Moscowan game and wan't to point some things out even some already mentioned ones ;)

First the starting situation is weird, there are many cities flipping and u got 3 settlers. But u only receiving 3 workers wich will need till the end of game to set up a infrastructure.
Either some flipping cities are removed or an simple infrastructure is set up already or some more workers.
Actually I'm not sure and i got not much knowledge about Moscowian history, but i bet they didn't had instantly a big area like this. So to cover that historic part we should reduce the amount of flipping cities. Also there should be 1 worker for every city at startup even for the flipping ones.
Building up 1 worker in every city right after start helps u to build up a small infrastructure and claim the resources pretty fast (free labour is a big help there). But technology-wise I'm far behind and unsure if it's possible to catch up.

Second point, the first UHV (the "loose no city to barbs till 1500") is just ridiculous, although i saw some barbs it was vice versa. I captured three barb cities and of course checked that UHV. If I hadn't scouted I never saw one single barbarian. This UHV must be reworked and since I have no clue about the Russian history I stay clueless about this :/

Controling 12 cities is easy as the first UHV, after capturing the three barb/indipendence cities (Astrakhan, Minsk and Riga) u've done. There is imho no way u can loose them again, if ur not running into a war with every neighbour :)

Since the game is about 1450 right now the last two UHVs are untouched, but the culture one looks pretty hard, wich I'm looking forward to :)

3Miro
Jun 18, 2009, 01:31 PM
I'm right now playing a Moscowan game and wan't to point some things out even some already mentioned ones ;)

First the starting situation is weird, there are many cities flipping and u got 3 settlers. But u only receiving 3 workers wich will need till the end of game to set up a infrastructure.
Either some flipping cities are removed or an simple infrastructure is set up already or some more workers.
Actually I'm not sure and i got not much knowledge about Moscowian history, but i bet they didn't had instantly a big area like this. So to cover that historic part we should reduce the amount of flipping cities. Also there should be 1 worker for every city at startup even for the flipping ones.
Building up 1 worker in every city right after start helps u to build up a small infrastructure and claim the resources pretty fast (free labour is a big help there). But technology-wise I'm far behind and unsure if it's possible to catch up.

Second point, the first UHV (the "loose no city to barbs till 1500") is just ridiculous, although i saw some barbs it was vice versa. I captured three barb cities and of course checked that UHV. If I hadn't scouted I never saw one single barbarian. This UHV must be reworked and since I have no clue about the Russian history I stay clueless about this :/

Controling 12 cities is easy as the first UHV, after capturing the three barb/indipendence cities (Astrakhan, Minsk and Riga) u've done. There is imho no way u can loose them again, if ur not running into a war with every neighbour :)

Since the game is about 1450 right now the last two UHVs are untouched, but the culture one looks pretty hard, wich I'm looking forward to :)

Later on today I hope to release the second alpha version. Moscow and Kiev have seen MANY changes.

Michael Vick
Jun 18, 2009, 05:21 PM
Hola everybody, I've been gone on an Empire: Total War binge. (Theyve got some really nice art we could use for the muslim units) Also, I've come with this really crazy and amazing idea for diplomacy which I'll share right after I get this issue cleared up. When the terrain was changed for central Spain, Sedna used the wrong set of screenshots. I left some plains above Madrid in some...
To clarify: the tile directly to the left of Madrid should be raised to a hill. The tile directly above and to the Northeast must be changed to hills and have light forests added. My bad :)

3Miro
Jun 18, 2009, 06:34 PM
Hola everybody, I've been gone on an Empire: Total War binge. (Theyve got some really nice art we could use for the muslim units) Also, I've come with this really crazy and amazing idea for diplomacy which I'll share right after I get this issue cleared up. When the terrain was changed for central Spain, Sedna used the wrong set of screenshots. I left some plains above Madrid in some...
To clarify: the tile directly to the left of Madrid should be raised to a hill. The tile directly above and to the Northeast must be changed to hills and have light forests added. My bad :)

I got one directly to the left and for the second one, I cannot understand where it is. (you don't mean to put forest on top of a desert hill, right?)

Can you post a corrected screenshot, indicate Madrid and the tiles you want changed and what you want to change them to via pop-up markers.

Michael Vick
Jun 18, 2009, 07:03 PM
I'm with my phone right now. Madrid is the tile two units East, 1 unit North of Toledo if I'm remembering correctly. The tile to the left that needs to be made into a hill is grassland with a forest already on it. Then the other tiles are the two plains on the south side of the Duero. I might not be making any sense right now, but look anyway, I'll check the map later
EDIT: Nevermind, you got it.

Michael Vick
Jun 19, 2009, 02:48 PM
Ok, this is my grand proposal. I've been exploring the diplomacy system in Empire: Total War, reading a lot about the history of European monarchs, and I have come up with a crazy idea. A concept, Crowns. I will explain.

CROWNS-
With this, you are not the King of your civilization, but you are the king and hold the crown/crowns of the kingdoms that make up your nation. Isabella is no longer the Queen of Spain, She is the Queen of Leon and Castille. Ragnar is not the King of the Norse, but the King of Sweden and Denmark, Harald Hardrada the King of Norway. Elizabeth not the Queen of England but the Queen of England and Ireland. Leopold is not the King of Austria, but the King of Hungary and Bohemia, of course he does not possess this title on the spawn, but you get my point. The leaders in the mod (so long as their civic is one of the monarchies, despotism included. also, running merchant republic negates the effect of crowns) possess the territories that they do because of their crowns and titles.
Kingdoms will be named based on the religion of their sovereign. A Christian controlled area is ruled by a King/Queen, Duke/Duchess, Prince/Princess, Count/Countess, and is referred to as a Kingdom, Duchy, Principality, etc. A Muslim controlled area is ruled by a Sultan, Caliph or Emir and is a Sultanate, Caliphate or Emirate. Some regions like Hungary and Bulgaria will need special Pagan names. The separate Kingdoms, in some instances, could be united, to form a Kingdom of Spain, France, or Great Britain

The Kingdoms - There will be many areas of the map designated as the regions for a crown. They have to have been historically ruled as a Kingdom, and have maintained that status for a greater part of our time frame.
This is the general list of Crowns and regions, it can be added on to, or reduced if my idea is passed.

For Iberia-
Kingdom of Portugal (covers Portugal's spawn zone)
Kingdom of Leon (covers Spain's spawn zone)
Kingdom of Aragon (covers the area from the Pyrenees to Valencia, Zaragoza to Barcelona)
Kingdom of Navarre ( small square SW of Northern Pyrenees, Pamplona will be the only city)
Kingdom of Castille (covers all of central and southern Spain, all area leftover after preceding kingdoms) (Any Muslim civs will hold castille as the "Caliphate of Cordoba")
When all but Portugal are controlled, the Kingdoms are united, forming the Kingdom of Spain.

For France-
Duchy of Brittany (covers Brittany)
Duchy of Burgundy (The Rhone to the Alps. Dijon, Lyon)
Kingdom of Aquitane (covers in between the rivers Loire and Garrone. Bordeaux, Toulouse)
Kingdom of Neustria (Covers from Reims and the West Bank of the Meuse river to Brittany)
Unification of last two will create Kingdom of France, the Kingdom of France will remain the Kingdom of France, cannot be separated into Neustria and Aquitane. Burgundy and Brittany when added, become part of the Kingdom of France but can be separated.

For Italia-
Duchy of Milan (Lombardy, excludes Genoa)
Kingdom of Naples ( Italy South of the Pope's territory, Sicily and Sardinia)
Papal State (Pope's territory, will always be the Papal State)

For Benelux
Kingdom of Holland (the dye and the iron tile, pretty much just Amsterdam)
County of Flanders (3x4 square South of Holland)
Unification of the two creates Kingdom of the Netherlands

For those rather large chunks of land North of Calais -
Kingdom of England (all of Britain South of that river next to Edinburgh)
Kingdom of Scotland (everything North of that)
Optional: Wales?
Unification of the three results in the Kingdom of Great Britain
Kingdom of Ireland (You know, Ireland.)

For Northern Europe-
Kingdom of Denmark (Denmark)
Kingdom of Norway ( Norway)
Unification of the two creates Kingdom of Denmark
Kingdom of Sweden (Sweden)

For Central Europe- (where it gets interesting)
Duchy of Lorraine ( Square just North of Burgundy)
Duchy of Wirtemberg (Square just East of Lorraine)
Duchy of Bavaria (fat cross of Augsburg, all the dense forest tiles)
Duchy of Saxony ( Strip of land Northeast of Bavaria, iron, deer, silver)
Margraviate of Brandenburg (from fat cross of Berlin, up to Baltic coast)
Kingdom of West Prussia (fat cross of Danzig/Gdansk)
Kingdom of East Prussia ( square East of West Prussia)
Kingdom of Bohemia (fat cross of Prague)
Kingdom of Austria (from Vienna to Trieste, to the Alps, shares border with bavaria)
The large gap in the Cologne area is intended.
Unification of first 5 creates the Kingdom of Germany
Unification of Brandenburg and the two Prussia's create the Kingdom of Prussia
Unification of Bohemia and Austria creates Kingdom of Bohemia (will always happen)

That's all I've got right now, if this works out I'm sure our new Russian friends could do Russia, Kiev, Poland. Anatolia and Greece will simply be part of the Byzantine Empire. Then I guess North Africa will be divided into a couple of Caliphates, Sultanates, Emirates depending on the time period.

The Kingdoms are possessed by controlling all of the cities in the region. Some are so small, the crown will be based in one city, such as Amsterdam/Holland, Pamplona/Navarre, Milan/Milan.

Now this not only provides fancy titles for the leaders, but it is pretty much the solution to the issue of dynamic names. Dynamic naming will be based on the crowns that the civ possesses, religion, vassalage and time.

There are different ways to gain and lose the crowns.

Conquest-
If you conquer all the cities of a kingdom, the kingdom is yours. Be aware that that you must capture them ALL, if you take all the cities in France but Paris, the ruler of Paris will still claim to be the rightful French King.

Diplomacy-
If a civilization is losing badly enough in a war, he might be persuaded to give up a kingdom in exchange for peace. If you have ridiculously large amounts of gold, or the rival civ simply cannot hold on to the territory, you can buy the crown from them.

Inheritance- (this is where etw comes in)
Every once in a while, as indicated by history, your ruler may or may not give birth to an heir. I've thought this out forever since this is quite complicated but this can all be based on actual history. All of the births can be coded to happen on the turns that they should. Now this is a colossal amount of information to be gathered, but it can be done. We'll only take into account the most prominent families and events of the times. The births will happen as events, and they will be shown in green font as good news up at the top-center of the screen.
"A new heir, Elizabeth has been born, securing the line of strong English rulers"
or something like that
"A new heir, Phillip has been born, securing the line of strong Spanish rulers"
When the current sovereign dies or abdicates, the firstborn of your heirs will succeed, probably in a little blue pop-up box as a major event.
"(name of heir) has succeeded to the crown of (any crowns you might hold, the heir is entitled to)"
"Elizabeth I has succeeded to the crowns of England and Ireland!"
"Phillip II has succeeded to the crowns of Spain, Naples, Milan, and the Netherlands!"
That's only if every thing goes according to plan though.
Your heirs can also die, this will all happen as historical.
When you run out of heirs, or you never come to produce an heir, you can leave the crowns to a member of a different royal family. Other civs will have a choice to accept the new heir, or dispute the succession and try to fight for the inheritance, this will create wars of succession.
All of these events can happen exactly as in history when the player is not involved. The player will see messages at the top of the screen occasionally displaying news of major events and exchanges of power. When the player IS involved, he will have choices. He can receive a blue pop-up box on the right announcing the of the king without heirs. He now has a couple of options. He can direct the inheritance to a selection of heirs from other countries, realistic choices though, only countries that are friendliest or are related and share the same religion. Let's say a human playing as Spain didn't get the UHVs, but still keeps playing. It is 1700, and the King Carlos II has died. He can:
-Direct the inheritance to the current ruler of France (immediately take control of Spain and France's possessions, other civs will likely dispute)
-Direct the inheritance to future heir of France (resume control of Spain, take control of France when current sovereign dies, other civs will likely dispute)
-Direct the inheritance to current ruler of Portugal (take control of Spain and Portugal, other civs likely to dispute)
-Direct the inheritance to future heir of Portugal (resume control of Spain, take control of Portugal when King of Portugal dies)
-Direct inheritance to current ruler of Austria (Take control of Spain and Austria, other civs dispute)
-Direct inheritance to future heir of Austria (resume control of Spain, take control of Austria when Leopold dies, dispute)
-Let the nobles and generals fight for control! (collapse, game ends)
-Abolish the Monarchy, establish a Republic! (switches civic to Republic)
When you direct the inheritance to another country, other civs will have the choice to start a war if they are not the chosen heirs. Nearby civs can choose to join the war on a side. Let's say the human is England whilst all this happened. Spain will make the second choice, (historical) selecting Phillipe of France as the heir to Spain. Austria will dispute the claim, and declare war on France. the human player is presented with a choice to either join the war on France's side so that the rightful heir can take control, or side with Austria to prevent a centralized power in Europe, or leave them alone to their fighting. Now let's say the human was playing as Russia, all of these decisions are made as historical, and you have yourself a War of Spanish Succession.

Now this provides for very constricting gameplay, you might say. I was thinking of making this an option or add on to the mod. A modmodmod, RFCEurope: Crowns.
Or it can be like in the opening turns of Road to War, where you can choose how to play. That would really set this mod apart from anything else produced here at civfanatics.
This sounds ridiculously ambitious, but it would really capture the feel of Europe. If the whole inheritance thing is too overwhelming, we could just include the rest of the crowns concept for dynamic naming. We could also figure out a formula of crowns to be required for the title of Holy Roman Emperor. THAT would solve problems.
So what do you think, "Crowns".

EDIT: My, that was a lot of text for probably nothing.

AnotherPacifist
Jun 19, 2009, 03:21 PM
This sounds a lot like EU III with fixed borders and cities. But you can build cities in RFC which makes it difficult to check when ALL cities have been captured. (would probably slow down the game a lot)

Michael Vick
Jun 19, 2009, 03:30 PM
Well I think the first city taken in the region should have the crown. If England has Edinburgh and Inverness, and the Vikings take Inverness, England still holds the holds the crown of Scotland. I think controlling ALL of the cities is only when you aim to take the crown from someone else, in which case you would need to take all of their cities. But with this passive AI, that wouldn't happen often.

Introducing the geographic condition as a factor for certain elements of the game would certainly slow it down, but I have a pretty fast computer so I wouldn't mind playing it with the feature added or taken away in the "custom scenario" menu, or just as a modmodmod.

micbic
Jun 19, 2009, 05:03 PM
A very nice idea (indeed seems like EU, as AP correctly points), but I have two disagreement points (besides possible coding difficulty)


For Central Europe- (where it gets interesting)
Duchy of Lorraine ( Square just North of Burgundy)
Duchy of Wirtemberg (Square just East of Lorraine)
Duchy of Bavaria (fat cross of Augsburg, all the dense forest tiles)
Duchy of Saxony ( Strip of land Northeast of Bavaria, iron, deer, silver)
Margraviate of Brandenburg (from fat cross of Berlin, up to Baltic coast)
Kingdom of West Prussia (fat cross of Danzig/Gdansk)
Kingdom of East Prussia ( square East of West Prussia)
Kingdom of Bohemia (fat cross of Prague)
Kingdom of Austria (from Vienna to Trieste, to the Alps, shares border with bavaria)
The large gap in the Cologne area is intended.
Unification of first 5 creates the Kingdom of Germany
Unification of Brandenburg and the two Prussia's create the Kingdom of Prussia
Unification of Bohemia and Austria creates Kingdom of Bohemia (will always happen)


Are you sure about Lorraine being part of Central Europe and not France? AFAIK, the only period Lorraine (Strasbourg, Metz, Nancy?) was German was at Bismarck's reign.
Moreover why Bohemia+Austria=Bohemia (I would go for Austria, and add Bohemia+Austria+Hungary=Austrohungary)


Inheritance- (this is where etw comes in)
Every once in a while, as indicated by history, your ruler may or may not give birth to an heir. I've thought this out forever since this is quite complicated but this can all be based on actual history. All of the births can be coded to happen on the turns that they should. Now this is a colossal amount of information to be gathered, but it can be done. We'll only take into account the most prominent families and events of the times. The births will happen as events, and they will be shown in green font as good news up at the top-center of the screen.
"A new heir, Elizabeth has been born, securing the line of strong English rulers"
or something like that
"A new heir, Phillip has been born, securing the line of strong Spanish rulers"


What about the LHs? We need many for each nation, if there is to be one leaderhead per ruler (unless we get around 20-30 LHs for all-nation use)

EDIT: Cross-post

3Miro
Jun 19, 2009, 05:03 PM
I don't know about UU and everything sounds good, but there are fundamental issues with implementing this into civilization (not just RFCE but civ in general).

Civs concept is that there is a nation (i.e. USA) and YOU enter into the boots of one of their great leaders (say Washington) and YOU lead this one nation through the entire history.

In RFC, nation switch leaders (for more of a historical feel), however, if you lead a nation, you will never change (when you play USA Washington does not become Lincoln ever). If the leader of France changes every 10 - 20 turns, then who am I?

If the AI leaders change too often that leads to several issues:
1. Every leader has a different personality. A strategy needs time to grow and develop, if the leader changes, then the AI strategy changes and if it changes too often, then everything fails.
2. If we keep constant personalities, then the only difference is the picture and the name. We cannot put in picture of all the dynasties of all the civs (it is impossible) and even if we go, with the constant personality, this will be so much work with virtually no effect on the gameplay.
3. If we code successions in a Congress style and if successions happen every 10 -20 turns, then there will be a new war every 10 - 20 turns. Now this is historical, however, in terms of RFCE it will destroy the gameplay. Eventually everyone will be at war with everyone else and there will be no regular diplomacy.
4. Those forced wars (the random ones that Rhye has in the code and the ones due to the congress in RFC) have little overall effect. The AI needs time to prepare for a war before it can lead one to a reasonable degree of competence. Forced wars lead to little more than a few border skirmishes. If a city falls, then that will be by accident.
5. You said it yourself, the game gets too restrictive. I don't want to do what was truly done in the past, I want to change it.

Coding the AI and re-balancing everything will be way too much work. We are having enough hard time trying to get some adequate action from the current AI.

Succession could be coded as a random event (actually there is already one such event in RFC). We can make it so that we can have a succession war over a city or something along those lines.

For the dynamic city names, those are the names of the civs, not the titles of the leader. Starting with something like the kingdom of Castille and then growing to the kingdom of Spain is OK, but then again, it will come at a considerable speed cost. We basically have to split the entire map, come up with all the names for all the little regions and then we will have something:
Isabella leader of:
Kingdom of Leon
Kingdom of Aragon
and
Kingdom of Navarre

You can call Isabella a Queen, but what if one has a number of Duchys (what is the plural of Duchy? Duchesses are the wifes of a polygamist Duke, right?) and Counties. (King of the Duchy of something?) (Top ten civilizations in the world: 1. Duchy of A, Duchy of B and County of C, 2. Kingdom of D and ...., )

Another problem will be the dynamic city locations. Civ is a game centered around cities and not regions. I hope you get the idea of how hard coding the names in that manner will be.

We can make the change of the name by year, how about that?

Basically some bits and pieces of what you are proposing could be coded, but definitely not the most of it.

Have you looked at a UU mod for civ, someone might have already done all that.

If you with to make a mod or modmod or mod^k with k>2, I will give you all the source code and basic instructions, however, I am not coding another mod^n for any n.

Michael Vick
Jun 19, 2009, 06:06 PM
@Micbic, when I list the big country/areas like Spain, France, Central Europe, they don't mean anything I'm just organizing them. And your idea for Austria would definitely simplify things, but I think the region was just referred to as Bohemia and Hungary seperately. The unification of the three might create a nation called Austria-Hungary, but Leopold will be the King of Hungary and Bohemia, as in history. I'm not especially adamant about any of this, though, continue to suggest. We don't need a whole lot of leaderheads, just one male, a female for some, and for the very different leaders we'll just use a 2d painting.
For example, For Spain we would use the El Cid leaderhead for the earlier Kings (not including El Cid), Isabella for any of the females, considering that our Isabella leader head looks nothing like Isabella of castille anyway, and Phillip II and paintings for the later male Kings.

@3Miro:
"Civs concept is that there is a nation (i.e. USA) and YOU enter into the boots of one of their great leaders (say Washington) and YOU lead this one nation through the entire history.

In RFC, nation switch leaders (for more of a historical feel), however, if you lead a nation, you will never change (when you play USA Washington does not become Lincoln ever). If the leader of France changes every 10 - 20 turns, then who am I?"

You are all of the leaders, you become each one, gameplay will be exactly the same, you'd only be switching names.

On your several issues:
1.The strategy will stay the same, or atleast it won't switch with every Monarch. This is RFC, and as you might remember, the civs have UPs, not traits.
2.The effect on gameplay is the way that the Kingdoms are shifted around, Europe was not shaped as much by warfare as it was by families and diplomacy, and lots of the warfare that did occur was based on this kind of diplomacy. Like I said, we don't need lots of pictures.
3.I think you misunderstood my last example, that will only happen if you run out of heirs. Normally, the succession will continue, there's almost always some inbred cousin somewhere in these old families.
4.I can see where you're coming from, I've seen many of those forced wars, well the AI doesn't need to declare war, if they get left out of the will of a deceased King than that could just cause diplomatic tensions.
5. I know, I don't want to force the the Inheritance concept on mainstream RFCEurope, It could be a choice. In Road to War, every single diplomatic action was predetermined, and it was still a fun game. AND, you had the option of going the other way.

The Inheritance thing should be dropped, but I still think the regions thing is a good way to decide dynamic names. If you're talking about the title you get on the diplomacy screen, it will always be referring to the home region, none of the extra possessions will be included.
Should they fulfill their natural areas of expansion, no matter how much farther they go, they will be described as:
The Duchy of Burgundy
The Kingdom of France
Byzantine Empire (always be called this no matter what)
Sultan/Emir/Caliphate of Arabia
Bulgarian Empire (always)
Sultan/Emir/Caliphate of Cordoba
Kingdom of Spain
Kingdom of Denmark (or Norse Kingdom)
Republic of Venice (they use Merchant Republic so they will never be affected)
Principality of Kyiv (or Kyivan Rus?)
Kingdom of Hungary
Kingdom of Germany
Kingdom of Poland
Not sure what to put for Moscow
Republic of Genoa (same as Venice)
Kingdom of Great Britain
Kingdom of Portugal
Kingdom of Bohemia
Ottoman Empire
The Dutch will spawn as the United Provinces, if they take Flanders, they will become the Kingdom of the Netherlands. If they use a Monarchy, they will start as the Kingdom of Holland.

So you see, the dynamic name will based on the regions in the natural area of expansion, the home region. Whatever they are called in the process of getting to this point, they can only amount to these names. Now, if any of the civs currently listed as Kingdoms should acquire surplus regions outside of the home area, the holy land excluded, they become an Empire.
Burgundian Empire (not likely to happen)
French Empire
Spanish Empire
Norse Empire (or something, idk)
Hungarian Empire (not likely since home region should be very large)
German/Prussian Empire
Polish Empire
British Empire (or English Empire if without Scotland)
Portuguese Empire
Austrian Empire
Dutch Empire (not likely)

AnotherPacifist
Jun 19, 2009, 06:19 PM
1. Every leader has a different personality. A strategy needs time to grow and develop, if the leader changes, then the AI strategy changes and if it changes too often, then everything fails.
*cough*USA every 4 years*cough*

On a more serious note, I think RFCE is not as great as RFC. Reasons:
--There are too many year-based UHV criteria. All you need to do is build up your infrastructure, kill a civ or 2, and occupy all your required land.
--No strategy to speak of like squatting, killing a civ at spawn to get their land, flipping Vikings across the ocean, first to get conquerors, etc. You might call these gimmicks, but that was what made RFC fun.
--The genius of RFC is, in a major part, the map. If you spawn in Mali, your strategy has to be limited by its deserts and jungles. Contrast that with Europe: in RFCE there's just way too many resources, and unless you're Arabia and have to found useless cities in the Maghreb, you can basically found cities anywhere and get decent food and production. The fun of deciding between Paris vs. Constance, Southampton vs London vs Nottingham, or Berlin vs Danzig or letting Frankfurt be your capital, is just gone.
--the lack of a whip means that history progresses in a time-limited fashion, and you can't take the risk of some unhappiness for a larger historic goal (e.g. get a wonder built sooner to beat the AI, or leaving a city empty of troops because you know you can whip it out soon).

3Miro
Jun 19, 2009, 06:23 PM
When I was talking about different leaders, I did not mean the traits. There is more detailed AI behavior then just the traits, in fact (for the AI) the traits do not dictate anything. Shaka will be a warmonger even of you make him spiritual and philosophical. Part of the AI is in the XML and part is in Python (mostly XML). Open the leaderhead file in Assets\XML\Civilizations and you will see what I mean.

For the dynamic names, I will have to think a little. There is still the issue of religion, i.e. if Simeon goes Catholic, he will not be a Tsar. Also Moscow started as Duchy, but Ivan IV upgraded it to Tsardom. At one point Bulgaria was a Knyajestvo (something like a Duchy) and so on.

All I am pointing is that there are many issues to consider, otherwise I actually like the idea. I will have to think more about it.

3Miro
Jun 19, 2009, 06:34 PM
*cough*USA every 4 years*cough*

On a more serious note, I think RFCE is not as great as RFC. Reasons:
--There are too many year-based UHV criteria. All you need to do is build up your infrastructure, kill a civ or 2, and occupy all your required land.
--No strategy to speak of like squatting, killing a civ at spawn to get their land, flipping Vikings across the ocean, first to get conquerors, etc. You might call these gimmicks, but that was what made RFC fun.
--The genius of RFC is, in a major part, the map. If you spawn in Mali, your strategy has to be limited by its deserts and jungles. Contrast that with Europe: in RFCE there's just way too many resources, and unless you're Arabia and have to found useless cities in the Maghreb, you can basically found cities anywhere and get decent food and production. The fun of deciding between Paris vs. Constance, Southampton vs London vs Nottingham, or Berlin vs Danzig or letting Frankfurt be your capital, is just gone.
--the lack of a whip means that history progresses in a time-limited fashion, and you can't take the risk of some unhappiness for a larger historic goal (e.g. get a wonder built sooner to beat the AI, or leaving a city empty of troops because you know you can whip it out soon).

RFCE has major flaws, first is that it is still only in Alpha. If you have suggestions to improve it, please share them with us.

Michael Vick
Jun 19, 2009, 06:35 PM
Here's an idea, since Civilization is based on cities as you pointed out, what about making the crowns based in cities? We could have specific cities be the seat of each crown.

Portugal- Lisbon
Leon- Leon
Castille- Toledo
Navarre- Pamplona
Aragon- Barcelona/Zaragoza
Cordoba - Cordoba
(After Unification) Spain - Toledo
Aquitane - Bordeaux/Toulouse (Have Burdigala spawn as indy)
Neustria - Paris
(After Unification) France - Paris
England - London
Scotland - Edinburgh
Ireland - Dublin
(After Unification) Great Britain - London
Milan - Milan
Naples - Naples
Holland - Amsterdam
Flanders - Antwerp (or first city founded in flanders establishes County of Flanders)
(AU) Netherlands - Amsterdam
Denmark - Copenhagen
Norway - Tonsberg ( because it's already there, I would prefer Stavanger)
(AU) Denmark - Copenhagen
Sweden - first city founded, after spawn of Sweden, Stockholm
(AU with Finland) Sweden - Stockholm
Lorraine - Strasbourg (or first city founded)
Wirtemberg - Stuttgart (or first city founded)
Bavaria - Augsburg(I would prefer Munich to be the indy that flips to Germany)
Hanover - Hanover
Saxony - Leipzig/Dresden (or first city founded)
Brandenburg - Berlin
West Prussia - Danzig
East Prussia - Konigsberg (or First city founded
(AU) Prussia - Berlin
(AU2)Germany - Berlin
Bohemia - Prague
Austria - Vienna
(AU) Bohemia - Vienna
Hungary - Budapest

Just controlling the single cities gives you the crown. They're each like the capitol of the mini-region. :) They could even have special buildings like a kind of minor palace to show their importance. Surely city based Crowns will lighten the load of work.

jessiecat
Jun 19, 2009, 07:13 PM
I'm also a bit dubious about what these crowns and inheritances would bring to actual gameplay. Yes, diplomacy would be more complex in the late game I guess but how much more interesting would that be? And would the AI be able to cope with it? I'd rather see enhanced diplomacy based on Papal edicts/bulls/alliances etc. similiar to the AP functions in RFC. I also partially agree with APs point about the UHVs, which I'd like to be less conquest or date based and somewhat more creative. Though I don't share his fondness for squatting, flipping, whipping and other gimmicks which can be easily exploited by the more clever players like himself to achieve an early and completely ahistorical outcome. Unlike some people I have no interest in amassing 75,000 in gold and conquering the entire map in 1400, thank you.:D

AnotherPacifist
Jun 19, 2009, 07:23 PM
RFCE has major flaws, first is that it is still only in Alpha. If you have suggestions to improve it, please share them with us.

OK, here goes:
1. Allow some year-based criteria to be open-ended: e.g. Acquire all luxury items by year instead of in year x. Give some definite numbers for certain criteria, e.g. instead of making Paris the most cultured city in 1700, make it 25000 culture, or for the Portuguese, give a certain gold amount to achieve (so it's up to the player whether he wants to produce things other than culture, how quickly to turn up the dial for gold vs culture).
2. It's probably too late for this, but the map should be about 1/4 smaller
3. allow chopping and whipping early on with a certain tech. You don't have to call it slavery.
4. Roman roads should be present in a lot of Western Europe. This is important if you want civs to be able to found alternate cities.

Tigranes
Jun 19, 2009, 07:23 PM
On a more serious note, I think RFCE is not as great as RFC.

I think RFCE has it's own unique attraction, and I would not compare those two at this point. It's just amazing how much work is requred to create a mod. I really enjoyed RFCE already at alpha stage and looking forward for beta and oficial release. Remember, you've been complaining that RFC is dead, well RFCE is not even in the legal age for drinking :nono::beer:

Tigranes
Jun 19, 2009, 07:30 PM
Re: whipping

I would say my entire Civ feeling had changed because of no whipping. First time I was actually saving some units for reserve to act in case of emergencies :) It's very realistic to think about ur entire city population as slaves who get killed in one turn constructing the Granary, isn't it? :).

3Miro
Jun 19, 2009, 07:53 PM
OK, here goes:
1. Allow some year-based criteria to be open-ended: e.g. Acquire all luxury items by year instead of in year x. Give some definite numbers for certain criteria, e.g. instead of making Paris the most cultured city in 1700, make it 25000 culture, or for the Portuguese, give a certain gold amount to achieve (so it's up to the player whether he wants to produce things other than culture, how quickly to turn up the dial for gold vs culture).
2. It's probably too late for this, but the map should be about 1/4 smaller
3. allow chopping and whipping early on with a certain tech. You don't have to call it slavery.
4. Roman roads should be present in a lot of Western Europe. This is important if you want civs to be able to found alternate cities.

1. In the case of by year x, the condition will have to be verified every turn. It makes the game run slower. Also, some of the "in" conditions really have an implied "survive" condition in them (Bulgaria and Byzantium vs the Turks for example).
2. The map can no longer really be changed. Way too much work and besides, which region would you make smaller? All of them evenly? Even now some areas are somewhat crowded and not all historical cities have a chance of being founded. It does make the game run slow and yes perhaps we should have made it smaller.
3. Early in the development we decided to remove the whip (regardless of how you call it, slavery, serfdom or whatever). The entire RFC gameplay is concentrated on the whip, even USA is best player with a powerful initial whip. We want to make something different. Some people will like it and some will not.
4. Adding pre-build roads to western Europe is an idea. Right now, workers work fast enough so it is not an issue for long, but having some initially might help.

3Miro
Jun 19, 2009, 08:49 PM
A point that I was considering for some time (and brought up by AnotherPacifist) is about the UHVs. Many of them come too late, which makes them either easy or requiring simply to wait around and do nothing. Also we should avoid many victories ending in the exact same year. Right now e have at least 5 - 6 associated with 1500AD. Part of the problem is that no European civ from our period has fallen like Babylon and Egypt, however, we will have to sacrifice some accuracy to gain more reasonable gamplay. Here are some examples:

-- Arabia - next to France, this is the worst example. Arabia starts early and who in his right mind will wait for 450 turns to get the UHV. It is way too much. We should make it shortly after the Turks spawn to 1500 - 1520 max. (The Ottoman conquest was in 1510 - 1520)
-- Bulgaria - force the Bulgarian survival to 1453 (the year Constantinople fell). Conquest of the land is doable by 1000AD and the construction should not be later than 1100AD. It is too easy otherwise.
-- Burgundy - Why 1500AD for Burgundy, could we make it sooner perhaps.
-- Byzantines - it is fine, just the question is "richest civ" or amass x gold (depends on the gamplay testing on how easy/hard it is).
-- Cordoba - put a time limit on the wonders (perhaps). The only competition for some of them is Arabia anyway. We should force Cordoba to be a bit faster in construction. Also make the survival 1492AD, the year Granada fell.
-- French - instead of control, make it: no English cities on this side of the British Channel (we should call it La Manche in the UHV)
-- Genoa - push all goals earlier, make it more challenging, but I have to test it on how fast it is possible.
-- Germany - 1700 is too late, Germany does spawn relatively early.
-- Hungary - 1650 gives too much wait for the Hungarians. We should make it: destroy Turkey or capture/raze/liberate 3 Turkish cities. If the Byzantines are at war with Turkey (and they will probably be) getting OB will not be a problem. Then just go for the crusade.
-- Kiev - Carpathian control should be in 1293. That was the last major victory of the Tatars over the Rus enslaving them until the liberation.
-- Poland - again too late? Will have to read some history to see.
-- Portuguese - survival is too late, pull it earlier.
-- Venice -- pull the goals earlier (make it more challenging).

I have little experience with the last three so I am not completely sure.

What do you guys think?

Michael Vick
Jun 19, 2009, 10:50 PM
OK, here goes:
1. Allow some year-based criteria to be open-ended: e.g. Acquire all luxury items by year instead of in year x. Give some definite numbers for certain criteria, e.g. instead of making Paris the most cultured city in 1700, make it 25000 culture, or for the Portuguese, give a certain gold amount to achieve (so it's up to the player whether he wants to produce things other than culture, how quickly to turn up the dial for gold vs culture).
2. It's probably too late for this, but the map should be about 1/4 smaller
3. allow chopping and whipping early on with a certain tech. You don't have to call it slavery.
4. Roman roads should be present in a lot of Western Europe. This is important if you want civs to be able to found alternate cities.

I found a map of the the main roads in the Roman Empire. This is 300 AD and shows only the most important so this should be what we need. I mapped it out on the civ map, here are screenshots. I also learned about lots of old Roman cities that developed at these intersections, which leads to make some suggestions.
I think there should be more indy cities at the start of the game. I put them as landmarks on the map, as well as with Roman spellings of the cities that are already there. Most of these I think they should be in the game from the the get-go, no spawning in 600 or 700. Among these are cities like Durocortorum (Reims) and Lugdunum (Lyon), I think France and burgundy should each get an extra on the flip now that their infrastructure has a bit of a jumpstart with these roads. A city I forgot to put in is Brigantium(La Coruna), placed at the end of the road in Galicia.

Michael Vick
Jun 19, 2009, 11:06 PM
OK, here goes:
1. Allow some year-based criteria to be open-ended: e.g. Acquire all luxury items by year instead of in year x. Give some definite numbers for certain criteria, e.g. instead of making Paris the most cultured city in 1700, make it 25000 culture, or for the Portuguese, give a certain gold amount to achieve (so it's up to the player whether he wants to produce things other than culture, how quickly to turn up the dial for gold vs culture).
2. It's probably too late for this, but the map should be about 1/4 smaller
3. allow chopping and whipping early on with a certain tech. You don't have to call it slavery.
4. Roman roads should be present in a lot of Western Europe. This is important if you want civs to be able to found alternate cities.

I found a map of the the main roads in the Roman Empire. This is 300 AD and shows only the most important so this should be what we need. I mapped it out on the civ map, here are screenshots. Not shown is North Africa, it starts in Fez, goes up to Tangier, and the rest just hugs the coast. There is a fork at Alexandria, one road goes down to Cairo and off the map, the other continues to Jerusalem. You know what would be really nice? For the Roman roads we could use those nice, cobbled roads from the Charlemagne mod. They would look nicer and they could give a movement bonus to show their superiority over crappy medieval European roads. I also learned about lots of old Roman cities that developed at these intersections, which leads me to make some suggestions.

I think there should be more indy cities at the start of the game. I put them as landmarks on the map, as well as with Roman spellings of the cities that are already there. Most of these I think should be in the game from the the get-go, no spawning in 600 or 700. Among these are cities like Durocortorum (Reims) and Lugdunum (Lyon), I think France and Burgundy should each get an extra on the flip now that their infrastructure has a bit of a jumpstart with these roads. A city I forgot to put in is Brigantium(La Coruna), placed at the end of the road in Galicia. Also not included is Tingi, on the Northern tip of Morocco. These extra cities will give the early game a more crowded feel, which there should be IMO, because it's Europe.

jessiecat
Jun 20, 2009, 03:51 AM
A point that I was considering for some time (and brought up by AnotherPacifist) is about the UHVs. Many of them come too late, which makes them either easy or requiring simply to wait around and do nothing. Also we should avoid many victories ending in the exact same year. Right now e have at least 5 - 6 associated with 1500AD. Part of the problem is that no European civ from our period has fallen like Babylon and Egypt, however, we will have to sacrifice some accuracy to gain more reasonable gamplay. Here are some examples:

-- Arabia - next to France, this is the worst example. Arabia starts early and who in his right mind will wait for 450 turns to get the UHV. It is way too much. We should make it shortly after the Turks spawn to 1500 - 1520 max. (The Ottoman conquest was in 1510 - 1520)
-- Bulgaria - force the Bulgarian survival to 1453 (the year Constantinople fell). Conquest of the land is doable by 1000AD and the construction should not be later than 1100AD. It is too easy otherwise.
-- Burgundy - Why 1500AD for Burgundy, could we make it sooner perhaps.
-- Byzantines - it is fine, just the question is "richest civ" or amass x gold (depends on the gamplay testing on how easy/hard it is).
-- Cordoba - put a time limit on the wonders (perhaps). The only competition for some of them is Arabia anyway. We should force Cordoba to be a bit faster in construction. Also make the survival 1492AD, the year Granada fell.
-- French - instead of control, make it: no English cities on this side of the British Channel (we should call it La Manche in the UHV)
-- Genoa - push all goals earlier, make it more challenging, but I have to test it on how fast it is possible.
-- Germany - 1700 is too late, Germany does spawn relatively early.
-- Hungary - 1650 gives too much wait for the Hungarians. We should make it: destroy Turkey or capture/raze/liberate 3 Turkish cities. If the Byzantines are at war with Turkey (and they will probably be) getting OB will not be a problem. Then just go for the crusade.
-- Kiev - Carpathian control should be in 1293. That was the last major victory of the Tatars over the Rus enslaving them until the liberation.
-- Poland - again too late? Will have to read some history to see.
-- Portuguese - survival is too late, pull it earlier.
-- Venice -- pull the goals earlier (make it more challenging).

I have little experience with the last three so I am not completely sure.

What do you guys think?

A couple of comments and some suggestions. There are a few people, including me, who enjoy long games so a long UHV victory is not necessarily a bad thing. Regarding changes in UHVs I did post a full list months ago but that seems to have been lost in the mists of time. Anyway, here are my suggestions incorporating the comments you've made above. I've done some research on key dates and these might be more realistic and doable.

Byzantines - no change but a fixed gold target is a good idea

Bulgaria - UHV1 to 1400 (was 1500)
................UHV2 to 1200AD (was 1400)
.................UHV3 to 1450AD (was 1600)

France - UHV2 - Paris to amass 15,000 culture pts. by 1680AD

Burgundy - UHV3 to 1470AD (was 1500)

Arabs - UHV3 to 1540AD (was 1700)

Cordoba - UHV2 -build the 3 wonders by 1300AD
...............UHV3 - Instead of not lose a city, - control 4 cities in Iberia and 4 in N.Africa by 1490AD

Norse - UHV1 to 1100AD (was 1050, Norman conquest of Sicily was actually in 1091)
................UHV2 to 1280AD (100 years earlier if Black Sea not included)

Germany - UHV1 -Control east bank of the Rhine by 1360AD (was 1500)
...................UHV2 -3 vassals by 1460AD (was 1600)
....................UHV3 -largest army in 1540AD (was 1700)

Venice - UHV1 to 1420AD (was 1500)
.................UHV2 to 1500AD (was 1600)
..................UHV3 to 1570AD (was 1700)

Genoa -UHV1 to 1540AD (including Milan, Marseilles, Corsica, Sardinia, Crete, and Sicily but not the Crimea)
................UHV2 - Build 2 corporations and 8 banks
.................UHV3 - open borders with 10 civs in 1640AD

England - no change except maybe just 3 cities anywhere in France west of Paris

Spain -UHV1 to 1520AD (was 1600)
...............UHV2 to 1580AD (was 1650)
...............UHV3 - Build 5 colonial projects (was 3)

Portugal -UHV1 changed to build 6 cities west and south of Iberia by 1530AD
.................UHV2 - never lose a city before 1640AD
..................UHV3 - build 3 colonial projects (as before)

Hungary - UHV1 -Control most territory by 1490AD
.................UHV2 - never lose a city to barbs or Ottomans by 1560AD
..................UHV3 - Be the first to adopt free religion (as before)

Poland - UHV1 to 1540AD (was 1600)
................UHV2 to 1600AD (was 1650)
.................UHV3 to 1660AD (was 1700)

Kiev - UHV2 to 1350AD (was 1400)
...............UHV3 to 1430AD (was 1500)

Moscow - UHV2 to 1600AD (was 1650)
.................UHV3 to 1670AD (was 1600)

Ottomans - UHV1 to 1520AD (was 1500)
..................UHV2 to 1620 AD (was 1600)
...................UHV3 to 1700AD (was 1750)

Dutch - UHV1 - have 10 open borders in 1640AD (was 1600, 20 years after spawn?)

Sweden - no change

3Miro
Jun 20, 2009, 08:21 AM
The only one that I can see as problematic is Portugal. Do you mean that they found 6 cities on the West African coast and the Azores. There is really nothing of value there, 6 cities is too much (and fewer could be too little). We can make the goal to be one Catholic cathedral, since there is no room for 4 cities in Iberia, they will have to expand outside (or maybe 6 monasteries, but total of 6 cities outside seems like too much).

Wessel V1
Jun 20, 2009, 10:34 AM
I share AP's complaints, but I don't necessarily think that RFCE is "worse" than RFC for this reason. Both use a very different method of making the game enjoyable: RFC gives you the idea of the crowded and rivalry between civs, while RFCE gives true empires. I enjoy both games, and the beautiful thing is that when I have the feeling that I've become bored of RFC, I can enjoy RFCE and the other way round. I do think though that UHVs come too late in general. If I want to continue playing after the UHV, I can try to win a score victory or a cultural victory. Besides, I only have 1 GB of RAM which is not much, but it is more than the minimum for Civ and I think that we should not make our game much heavier than these specifications. And, I think that AP is right when he says that there should be more "unique" UHVs. Challenges like 'the earliest possible UHV' can currently not exist in RFCE, and virtual victories would come suprisingly early. The fact that you have to survive to win is not very appealing to me IMO (to be continued, have to go now!)

BurnEmDown
Jun 20, 2009, 10:48 AM
I think the "by" critera for some UHVs won't slow down the game. For example in RFC Rome has a UHV: Build 5 amphitheaters, barracks, and aqueducts by 150AD, now the game doesn't check every turn to see if the player completed it, and it doesn't check in 150AD either, it checks only once the player finished his final building if the year 150AD has passed, and if not, the player gets the UHV (so it is possible to finish the UHV by say 100 AD, lose some buildings up until 150 AD and still get the UHV).

The Turk
Jun 20, 2009, 11:12 AM
I think there should be more indy cities at the start of the game. I put them as landmarks on the map, as well as with Roman spellings of the cities that are already there. Most of these I think should be in the game from the the get-go, no spawning in 600 or 700. Among these are cities like Durocortorum (Reims) and Lugdunum (Lyon), I think France and Burgundy should each get an extra on the flip now that their infrastructure has a bit of a jumpstart with these roads. A city I forgot to put in is Brigantium(La Coruna), placed at the end of the road in Galicia. Also not included is Tingi, on the Northern tip of Morocco. These extra cities will give the early game a more crowded feel, which there should be IMO, because it's Europe.

I coulden't agree more! There is a definet lack of cities in North Africa and in Europe, which means that most of the time a Civilizations spawn zone (other than Arabia, Ottomons) won't get any other cities. There really is a chronic needing of extra cities in this mod

jessiecat
Jun 20, 2009, 11:20 AM
The only one that I can see as problematic is Portugal. Do you mean that they found 6 cities on the West African coast and the Azores. There is really nothing of value there, 6 cities is too much (and fewer could be too little). We can make the goal to be one Catholic cathedral, since there is no room for 4 cities in Iberia, they will have to expand outside (or maybe 6 monasteries, but total of 6 cities outside seems like too much).

I think the Portugal idea came from Michael Vic who was keen on them settling the Azores, Madeira etc. And there are at least 2 decent sites SW of Tangier on the coast anyway. But one cathedral and 6 monasteries would accomplish much of that anyway. Let's go with that instead.
So can we try the new dates as suggested? If some turn out too hard we can relax them in the next version. Yes?:)

Michael Vick
Jun 20, 2009, 06:27 PM
On the Portugal UHV:
It was I who suggested that Portugal settle the islands and Morocco, but with a different wording. I said "In 1500/1560, control the Azores, Madeiras, and Western Sahara."
This implies something completely different from the other idea. "West of Iberia" rules out Tanger and Casa Branca, which were Portuguese colonies. With my wording, depending on Cordoba's expansion, Portugal might only have to build 3 cities, but this implies getting the carrack and getting to the islands which might be challenging for the AI in 1500.

On Spain:
The first UHV should remain at 1600, this is a perfect date because it is situated right in the middle of the period of the union between Spain and Portugal. (1560-1640) If it must be made earlier, I say 1560.
The second UHV should be either made the same date or merged with the first UHV. The Spain game is ridiculously easy right now, and it entails waiting around and doing nothing for much of the 1500's. Really, think of what the second UHV involves, building about three inquisitors for Cordoba, Cadiz, and Valencia and sometimes a stray Jewish faction in some other city. This, and praying dearly that Portugal doesn't go Protestant. Combining the first and second UHV's makes more sense.
The third UHV needs to be different. Not 3, not 5 either. How about: Control the Caribbean, Central and South America in 1640. Obviously this would only work with the new list of colonies. Spain would have to build the colonies fast, and not allow France and England to get their piece of the pie until the late game. (Historical)
UHV1... Unite Iberia under Spain and Catholicism in 1560AD.
UHV2... Spread Catholicism to __%/Control 8 Gold/Silver resources by 1600AD
UHV3... Control the Caribbean, Central and South America in 1640AD/ Have more colonial projects than the English, French, and Dutch UNTIL 1700 AD.

I suggest changing the English colonial UHV to: Have the largest colonial empire in 1760, OR 1800.

All the other colonial UHV's should be changed to 5, 6 if the new list is added.

What do you think of the Roman Roads? 3Miro, is there any way we can use those old cobbled roads from the Charlemagne mod?

3Miro
Jun 20, 2009, 08:35 PM
6 cities would require the Portugal gets something outside of Iberia (obvious choices are Africa and the Arozes). That way we combine culture and some colonialism.

About half of the world will be Catholic in the beginning, making the % requirement for Catholicism easy. You can force a later day, which would require that Spain goes on some sort of a Crusade trough out Europe to purge Protestants. I am not sure if it will work, we can try, it may force the player to conquer England (but the battle at Trafalgar comes in 1805, too late for our mod).

Silver and gold overlaps with the colonial UHVs.

When the new colonies are included, all colonial UHVs will be updated. Also the number of resources per colony will go down.

For the British, how about be the larges colonial empire at some point of time. That is, you win if you are the first to get a colony (i.e. beat the Portuguese and Spanish to the new world). Also, if at some point you get ahead, then you get the UHV? Maybe not a good idea. My only problem with 1760 is that it comes late.

We can build roads, but I am against making them "Rail Roads" The movement shouldn't be different then the one on the regular roads. (or if the regular roads are 1/2, then make those 1/3 tops).

3Miro
Jun 20, 2009, 08:37 PM
I coulden't agree more! There is a definet lack of cities in North Africa and in Europe, which means that most of the time a Civilizations spawn zone (other than Arabia, Ottomons) won't get any other cities. There really is a chronic needing of extra cities in this mod

At some pint there were way more cities then now and AFIK they were removed because:

1. They were slowing the game a lot.
2. (and more importantly) They reduce your choice on where you can settle.

Michael Vick
Jun 20, 2009, 11:10 PM
Ok, so what do you think the Portuguese UHV should be?

The second Spanish UHV could require conquering Naples, Milan, Flanders and holding them until 1700 or so. (A Catholic conquest of England! That WAS the intention up until the armada was destroyed. But 1805, rats! That would have made for a very interesting UHV! :lol:)

The English colonial UHV should be pretty late IMO. If I liked playing as the English I'd want the late game to be very significant. England's golden age was in the late 1700's, 1800's onwards, no?

I coulden't agree more! There is a definet lack of cities in North Africa and in Europe, which means that most of the time a Civilizations spawn zone (other than Arabia, Ottomons) won't get any other cities. There really is a chronic needing of extra cities in this mod

Look at this worldbuilder save, its a revised system of Roman roads, and I added some earlier cities. I had an idea, maybe instead of cities to slow the game down, the old Roman settlements could be depicted as villages strewn across Europe. Some are in the map as cities, others as villages, and I even added some locations of ruins for demolished Roman cities. The roads are there, and all names are in Latin. The result is something that looks a lot more Post-Roman.

Other Changes you might notice:
I added some gold in Southern Portugal, because, quite simply, there was lots of gold mining there. I removed parts of the old road system in Byzantium, replaced with the Roman system. Changed the silk plantations in Syria to the silk resource alone. (Why are they like that?)

City Additions:
Byzantium got Trapezus in the Northeast, it's got a larger population than the others, and has a harbor, granary and church.
Attalia in the South, West of Tarsus, it's standard size, and empty. Presumably this and Trapezus will flip to the Turks as Trabzon and Antalya?
Dyrrachium Southwest of the Balkans, larger pop, harbor, granary, church.
Byzantium got Memphis(Cairo) Maybe we could include the pyramids which will give Byzantium some much needed stability. This would flip to the Arabs.

I've come up with an idea for Byzantium. There are lots of new cities in the med sea, on the very second turn, we could have all of them flip to Byzantium. The Byzantines would get more of North Africa, Sicily, Southern Italy, Sardinia, and a slice of Southern Spain. This would simulate the conquests of Belisarius (500-565), and give Byzantium super-high stability for a while. Or, the flips could be coded to come in waves, with the territories being gained as Belisarius conquered them. This would give Byzantium even more prolonged stability. AND all the extra cities will speed up the inevitable collapse which will happen at around 700/800 with this system.

The rest of the cities added are pretty much self explanatory, you can figure out what they are by the names.

EDIT: It says invalid file, how do I upload a worldbuilder save?

jessiecat
Jun 20, 2009, 11:49 PM
A few comments about the issues you raised.
1. I think the idea of 1 cathedral plus 6 monasteries means that Portugal would have to build 3-4 cities outside of Iberia (1 or 2 in W. Africa, 1 or 2 on the islands). That seems a fair balance to me.
2. I agree the first 2 Spanish UHVs could combine in about 1600. The 2nd. could be have 3-4 cities in Italy, Sicily, N. Africa by 1700. How about that?
3. I agree that England's UHVs should remain late. Having to build 2 trading companies and 5 colonies while still being first to the Industrial Age will not happen very early anyway. So no UHV date is required IMO.
4. I like your Roman roads but not cobbled and I'd be wary of adding a lot more indies for the reasons 3Miro stated. The game is already getting slow enough.
5. Having a lot of Byzantine cities west of Cyrene will only mean they flip to indy due to instabilty almost immediately. We've already got Tripoli, Tunis, Alger and Tanja. We don't need more.
6. The silk plantations near Damascus are there to simulate the main terminus of the Silk Road which existed in pre-Muslim times. So the Arabs need them as tradable resources. I'd leave them just as they are.
7. If you want to post a WB save, first put in a compressed file (ie ZIP) and then post it like that. OK?:)

Michael Vick
Jun 21, 2009, 01:40 AM
1.But then Portugal might settle anywhere.
2. Yes, something like that, more like 1550, different wording though. :lol:
3. Yes, Late game for England!
4.Well they're not exactly cobbled, have you played the Charlemagne mod? Yes, I didn't really add many cites, Just villages. Do you like that idea?:)
5.The cities will flip to Byzantium on the next turn, causing a surge of stablity, they should then break off rather soon, as in history.
6.Ok
7. Here goes, probably did it wrong...




(Can we move Cyrene 1 tile East?, check a map)

BurnEmDown
Jun 21, 2009, 02:17 AM
Hey I was thinking maybe we could add like an optional UHV which will be really hard to get and also it's finish date should be very early and if completed it will give the player a golden age, so for France for example it will be control Dijon by 650AD and for England control more than 3 cities in France by XAD, and for Hungary it will be conquer Bulgaria by XAD, so yes basically it will be about conquering but some civs which didn't conquer much would have some cool UHVs to think about, maybe Portugal's optional UHV could be to settle 2 cities in Nafrica by XAD.
So basically these UHVs should be very hard and they shouldn't be something that if a player just focuses on a little be accomplished like regular UHVs, they should be more like the UHVs of Babylon and Egypt in RFC, with players having to think hard how they'll play in order to accomplish them.

jessiecat
Jun 21, 2009, 03:51 AM
1.But then Portugal might settle anywhere.
2. Yes, something like that, more like 1550, different wording though. :lol:
3. Yes, Late game for England!
4.Well they're not exactly cobbled, have you played the Charlemagne mod? Yes, I didn't really add many cites, Just villages. Do you like that idea?:)
5.The cities will flip to Byzantium on the next turn, causing a surge of stablity, they should then break off rather soon, as in history.
6.Ok
7. Here goes, probably did it wrong...




(Can we move Cyrene 1 tile East?, check a map)

1. Of course they'll settle where they like! This is Civ isn't it?.:D
2. Agreed
3. Agreed
4. I like the roads as they are. Just ordinary roads. Too many new indies though esp. in Italy, Spain, England
and France. These towns, would they be named? Anyway I like them without names.
5. All those cities will flip to indy in a couple of turns after that. Do we really need so many indies, esp. in Anatolia? I thought we're trying to keep the indies to a minimum.
6. Agreed
7. Looks fine to me. You did it right. And yes, Cyrene is better where you put it.:goodjob:

jessiecat
Jun 21, 2009, 03:57 AM
Hey I was thinking maybe we could add like an optional UHV which will be really hard to get and also it's finish date should be very early and if completed it will give the player a golden age, so for France for example it will be control Dijon by 650AD and for England control more than 3 cities in France by XAD, and for Hungary it will be conquer Bulgaria by XAD, so yes basically it will be about conquering but some civs which didn't conquer much would have some cool UHVs to think about, maybe Portugal's optional UHV could be to settle 2 cities in Nafrica by XAD.
So basically these UHVs should be very hard and they shouldn't be something that if a player just focuses on a little be accomplished like regular UHVs, they should be more like the UHVs of Babylon and Egypt in RFC, with players having to think hard how they'll play in order to accomplish them.

Interesting idea. But maybe we should get the main UHVs sorted out first. OK?

BurnEmDown
Jun 21, 2009, 06:42 AM
Agreed :) For the optional UHVs I don't know if it would fit better to have goals that divert you from your main UHV goals (thus making them harder) or goals that are really hard but if you accomplish them will help you towards your UHV goal (like the many example goals I've given to England, France, Portugal, Hungary).
For goals that divert I think for example for France: Vassalize Burgundy by 700AD, that would be not only kinda challanging, but also would make it harder to conquer them later, you'd have to let them die out somehow or break off from your vassalization, which is much more problematic than just conquering them.

3Miro
Jun 21, 2009, 08:06 AM
Many people play RFC with the so called challenges, i.e. a different set of UHVs. For example, when I play Rome, I always try to recover the territory lost to France and Spain and the others. My goal is to have Trian's Empire in 1400AD. So players can do that without extra code from us.

Michael Vick
Jun 21, 2009, 06:09 PM
1. I meant that in order to reach their UHV, Portugal would now be settling in France and other random, empty areas instead of the islands and Africa, which defeats the purpose of giving them a territorial UHV.
4. I'd like to atleast put in Hispala and Ebora, Gades was actually more important but Cordoba will probably settle it no matter what. Then there's Ceasaragusta(Zaragoza), as probably the second most important city of Aragon. We can get rid of maybe one or two of the villages in England. I only named them to explain their locations, they wouldn't have the little tags in game.
5. Reggio and Bari could probably be made into villages, Naples is already there anyway. I think Pisa is important, it was one of the four big trading republics in Italy. Genoa, Venice, Pisa, and Amalfi or something. Also it's home to one of the wonders. Why should we worry about too many indies in the early game? Europe will eventually get crowded and the earliest turns already fly pretty quickly, at least on my computer. Right now I think that Trebizond, Cairo, Dyrrachium, Pisa, Strasbourg, Bordeaux, Reims, Lyon, Seville, and Zaragoza are most important as extra indies.
7. I'm not much for computers, this is a big step for me. :king::lol:

3Miro
Jun 21, 2009, 06:51 PM
I don't think France is an easy spot to settle, consider the cultural war with both France and Burgundy. Actually Africa and the Azores would be the easy locations (close + no one to compete with, except maybe Cordoba).

Michael Vick
Jun 21, 2009, 09:56 PM
I've seen the Portuguese take Cadiz, Marseilles, one time even Lubeck, but ok, let's try that UHV.

youtien
Jun 22, 2009, 04:24 AM
As Portugal my only stragedy is conquer Spain and Cordoba. If I can't maintain control, I can raze.

The Turk
Jun 22, 2009, 04:55 AM
Where did you guys put the thread for the download of Rhyes Europe?

BurnEmDown
Jun 22, 2009, 05:02 AM
RFC Europe Files.

3Miro
Jun 22, 2009, 05:43 AM
We should make it so that Portugal can defend against Spain and Cordoba, but conquering them should be incredibly difficult. My opinion of course.

Michael Vick
Jun 23, 2009, 02:20 PM
Portugal's spawn zone should be smaller. Anything two tiles South of Lisbon should be cut off, remember, Portugal had a reconquista of their own. I realized this after spawning as Portugal and getting the Cordoban city of Lagos in the 1100's, inaccurate.

BTW, I'm loading Moscow and I see a message on the top of the screen, "The Papal Civilization has been destroyed!!!" Can't wait to see what that's all about... :rolleyes:

3Miro
Jun 23, 2009, 02:51 PM
Do you have details on that one. Why was it destroyed. Is Rome still there, was it razed or something ...

Michael Vick
Jun 23, 2009, 03:10 PM
It's just the ruins. No idea what could have happened...

What do you think of the Portugal thing?

3Miro
Jun 23, 2009, 03:54 PM
It's just the ruins. No idea what could have happened...

What do you think of the Portugal thing?

Alpha 2 still has the bug where the Pope can declare a war. If the Pope has lost a war, then Rome could be razed. If Roma was still there as independent or something, then tat left the possibility for stability collapse and would have require more work. (I don' think single city civilization can decent into civil wars, but I have to double check)

I have no objections to Portugal spawn being decreased. That would give them even less land in Europe and encourage them to settle else where.

Michael Vick
Jun 23, 2009, 04:08 PM
Perfect, in the next version then?

3Miro
Jun 23, 2009, 10:06 PM
I am updating the UHVs and only three remained somewhat up the air:

Hungary - don't lose a city to Barbs, that means couple of Keshiks, it is not very hard. The Turkish AI doesn't stand a snowflake chance in hell of reaching Hungary (the best we can hope to do is Constantinople and part of Bulgaria). So the Hungarian UHV should be something else. What do you people think about conquer/raze 3 Turkish cities, or eliminate Turkey.

Portugal: 1. Build 6 Catholic Monasteries (implies colonization of Azores and/or Africa)
2. Never lose a city before 1640AD
3. Build 3 Colonial Porjects

Spain: 1. Unite Iberia under Catholicism (Conquer/Vassalize and leave no other religion).
2. ?????
3. Build 3 colonial projects.

jessiecat
Jun 23, 2009, 10:25 PM
I am updating the UHVs and only three remained somewhat up the air:

Hungary - don't lose a city to Barbs, that means couple of Keshiks, it is not very hard. The Turkish AI doesn't stand a snowflake chance in hell of reaching Hungary (the best we can hope to do is Constantinople and part of Bulgaria). So the Hungarian UHV should be something else. What do you people think about conquer/raze 3 Turkish cities, or eliminate Turkey.

Portugal: 1. Build 6 Catholic Monasteries (implies colonization of Azores and/or Africa)
2. Never lose a city before 1640AD
3. Build 3 Colonial Porjects

Spain: 1. Unite Iberia under Catholicism (Conquer/Vassalize and leave no other religion).
2. ?????
3. Build 3 colonial projects.

How about;

Hungary No Ottoman cities in the Balkans by x date? They'd could be forced to
prevent Ottoman expansion west of Constantinople.

Portugal 1. OK (or specify 2 in N.Africa and 4 islands)

Spain 2. Control 4 cities in Italy and N. Africa (including islands. eg Sardinia, Sicily etc.) putting them in competition with Genoa.

Michael Vick
Jun 23, 2009, 10:28 PM
Hungary- I say give the Ottomans another settler, and more knights/bombards, make them despise the Christians more.
Portugal- I'd rather directly imply the settling of the islands but this is fine, we could give it a try, see if it works.
Spain- 1. fine
2. Ensure that Protestantism spreads to no more than __%/ Conquer Sardinia, Sicily, Naples, and Milan (no time indicated, you get until the end of the mod to do it)/squat the Netherlands :lol:
3. Have more colonial projects than the English, French, and Dutch in 1600

3Miro
Jun 23, 2009, 11:04 PM
Hungary- I say give the Ottomans another settler, and more knights/bombards, make them despise the Christians more.
Portugal- I'd rather directly imply the settling of the islands but this is fine, we could give it a try, see if it works.
Spain- 1. fine
2. Ensure that Protestantism spreads to no more than __%/ Conquer Sardinia, Sicily, Naples, and Milan (no time indicated, you get until the end of the mod to do it)/squat the Netherlands :lol:
3. Have more colonial projects than the English, French, and Dutch in 1600

Hungary - no way the AI can directly pose a treat to Hungary, we should go with no Turkish cities in Europe. (Vladislaus III of Varna)

Portugal - OK lets go with 2 cities in Africa and one on the Azores.

Spain - There is no real way to block protestantism other than total war (and if France remains Catholic, that means going through France to real Germany and beyond). I would go with the Islands, I am just not sure about Milan. It practically means conquest of Genoa. Maybe substitute Milan with 1 or 2 cities in N Africa. (the rest is OK)

Michael Vick
Jun 23, 2009, 11:35 PM
Hungary - Good Idea

Portugal - AHEM, (Madeiras :))

Spain - Well I liked the Milan idea because although conflict with Genoa is ahistorical, Genoa did become a vassal. But ok, and I suggest the strip of land between Tangier and Melilla. If this appears to be too easy there's always the Netherlands :D

Wessel V1
Jun 24, 2009, 03:26 AM
To be honest, I think the third and the second goal are very easy, things you'd do anyway if you want to play a comfortable game. Maybe we should change the first goal into: build at least a city on X different "islands". IIRC, there are some islands SW of Lisboa, Ireland is probably still unsettled or empty enough, maybe there is some more space in Brittain, Sicily of course, and so on. So, would it be reasonable to ask them to settle at least 8 cities on different islands? (The code could be transferred from RAND of course)

I've never liked the goal of never losing a city since I've been playing RFC. It's not necessarily boring, but if you lose a city, you already know for quite some time that you've messed up. I can understand why certain civs can have these goals, Byzantium for example might be one of them that could be challenging, but overall there is no major accomplishment needed, since it requires a passive playing style. I don't know if I'm asking something unreasonable now, since I haven't done so many games as Portugal, but we could give them a goal like: ensure there is no Cordoban or Spanish culture in this area (which could be the spawn area). That could require the player to totally destroy both civs, or at least make sure that their culture simply never gets into the area. (On the flip, there is AFAIK always some culture of the previous civilization that doesn't disappear. So, it will never disappear unless Spain and Cordoba are destroyed. In that case, we could alter the goal to have at least 90% culture in the required area, or whatever is reasonable. I'm not sure whether it's possible to remove culture with espionage, but it would be fun if it is)

The third goal is very reasonable I think. Let's go with that.

3Miro
Jun 24, 2009, 07:02 AM
To be honest, I think the third and the second goal are very easy, things you'd do anyway if you want to play a comfortable game. Maybe we should change the first goal into: build at least a city on X different "islands". IIRC, there are some islands SW of Lisboa, Ireland is probably still unsettled or empty enough, maybe there is some more space in Brittain, Sicily of course, and so on. So, would it be reasonable to ask them to settle at least 8 cities on different islands? (The code could be transferred from RAND of course)

I've never liked the goal of never losing a city since I've been playing RFC. It's not necessarily boring, but if you lose a city, you already know for quite some time that you've messed up. I can understand why certain civs can have these goals, Byzantium for example might be one of them that could be challenging, but overall there is no major accomplishment needed, since it requires a passive playing style. I don't know if I'm asking something unreasonable now, since I haven't done so many games as Portugal, but we could give them a goal like: ensure there is no Cordoban or Spanish culture in this area (which could be the spawn area). That could require the player to totally destroy both civs, or at least make sure that their culture simply never gets into the area. (On the flip, there is AFAIK always some culture of the previous civilization that doesn't disappear. So, it will never disappear unless Spain and Cordoba are destroyed. In that case, we could alter the goal to have at least 90% culture in the required area, or whatever is reasonable. I'm not sure whether it's possible to remove culture with espionage, but it would be fun if it is)

The third goal is very reasonable I think. Let's go with that.

You can ask that Portugal has X amount of culture combined in all of their cities (by year Y), however, there is no way to block Spanish or Cordoban culture from coming into the Portuguese core. The way plot culture is computed is completely different from city culture, comparing plot cultures is meaningless IMO.

OK, I forgot about the Madeiras, one city there as well.

AnotherPacifist
Jun 24, 2009, 10:46 AM
Any chance of borrowing the Legion system from ROTK 2.1? I love to get a reusuable great general like Khalid ibn al-Walid, Belisarius, El Cid, all the way to Napoleon and Wellington.

Wessel V1
Jun 24, 2009, 10:51 AM
That is not totally true, at least not without RFC rules. In RFRE, which uses the Revolution mod, there was a button combination (I forgot which, but I remember it was excellent) that allowed the player to see the plot information very detailed. For example, Brennus had 8 culture in plot XY, and the Roman leader had 56 culture in plot XY, so Brennus had 12% culture and the Roman leader had 87% culture. I don't know how these results are calculated exactly (probably it has something to do with the cultures spheres, and the culture is divided equally on all plots with the same distance, but to be sure I have to check it once again). In RFC this could be different but I guess not. So, it is possible and not very hard to actively reduce the culture in a plot. It takes some time though, so it's a dangerous one.

Even then, it might indeed be unnecessarily complicated. There is indeed no way to block foreign culture from you cities apart from just total destruction, however, it is possible to just own the plot, which is not very hard to do but when it's outside the core territory (not very much of course, but I think the next spawn area will be smaller than the current Portuguese borders), the player has to take some action to get it. :)

3Miro
Jun 24, 2009, 11:20 AM
The culture that every plot gets is not the culture given by the city. There is some additional culture that has to do with the cultural level of the city. Also, several cities can influence the same tile and since Portugal has fewer cities, they are at a disadvantage. Furthermore, there are cultural modifiers both for how much culture is produced and how much culture get into a players core territory. The core territory is better culturally defended. So it is very complicated. If you want, you can make Portugal amass x culture, how about that.

Wessel V1
Jun 24, 2009, 11:54 AM
That's also fine. I don't know if there are historical objections to that, but it's no problem to me.

3Miro
Jun 29, 2009, 07:38 PM
I could not remember if there was a dedicated tread so I am including some Great People comments here.

1. Removed Ivan IV as great general, he is now the leader of Russia.
2. I saw Ivan Asen in the list. This is somewhat confusing fact: there is Asen I who was a good general (Byzantine soldiers still feared him and would not attack Bulgaria after he was assassinated). There is Ivan Asen II (Asen I's son) who was a great diplomat, but not a general at all. Anyway, I replaced Ivan Asen with Krum and Kaloyan, both are more appropriate.
3. Added Khan Telerig as a great spy, unlike Ivanko he had a positive effect for Bulgaria (Ivanko was Bulgarian, but should count as Byzantine Great Spy).
4. Added St Kliment as Great Scientist and St Kiril as Great Prophet. Together with St Naum and St Medtdius those four defined the European culture east of Hungary and north of Constantinople.

3Miro
Jul 02, 2009, 01:49 PM
The Pope/Player relationship should be worked upon.

I was thinking about introducing a new concept (shouldn't be hard to implement). I call that "Faith Points". This is somewhat similar to Charlemagne's scenario.

- Everyone starts with 0 faith points.
- Setting new state religion +1 faith point.
- Changing state religion (SR) resets the faith points.
- Spreading the SR to a city (naturally or with a Missionary) +1 point.
- Spreading a non-state religion -1 point.
- Performing a prosecution +1 faith.

Then comes the Great Prophet use. Right now GPs are very underpowered. They can only light-bulb and settle, no third option and furthermore the light-bulb is somewhat week. With a Great Prophet, one can instantly boost their faith points (i.e. +5 or +10, depending on the balance).

What are FP useful for, well that will depend on the religion.

For all players (regardless of the religion)
- diplo boost for sharing the same religion (i.e. +1 pnt for 3 FPs)

Different religions will have different benefit from high number of Faith Points.

Catholicism:
- huge diplo boost of relations with the Pope
- gifts of units and gold from the Pope
- increased chance to lead the Crusade
- if FP are hight enough, a Catholic player at war with a non-Catholic one can ask for a defensive Crusade (i.e. a bunch of units will spawn in the player's capital). That will be very useful for Spain and Portugal in particular (also for Hungary if we ever improve Turkey's AI enough). I think defensive Crusades against Orthodox nations should be excluded, I cannot think of a Catholic Crusade against an Orthodox nation (other than the IV-th Crusade, but that is already covered in the game).

Orthodoxy:
- big stability bonus (Caesaropapism implies strong church = strong secular authority) (useful for Byzantium)
- lower maintenance cost (useful for Byzantium and Moscow)

Islam:
- lower unit cost (i.e. 1% per FP, capped at 25%), that should cover the Jihad (useful for Arabia)
- faster Growth (for Turkey and Cordoba)

Protestantism:
- increased research rate (capped at 10 - 20%)
- increased production (i.e. 1% per FP capped at 20% or 15%)
(useful especially for the new born Netherlands and Sweden as well as the British that require a lot of production for all the colonies)

The Crusader/Gifts combination will be powerful in the beginning, but it will lose its attractiveness as the game goes on (the gifts of units will only be units produced by the Pope). Spawning Crusaders will have cap on the tech level (i.e. no Line infantry will ever appear for a Crusade). That way the potential benefit from switching from Catholicism to Protestantism is big, however, the Faith Points will start from 0 (or just +1).

At the same time, the other religions are a symmetric, but not disbalanced. Bulgaria and Kiev will have reasons to stick to Orthodoxy beyond the UHV. Byzantium will have a great incentive (stability wise) and Moscow will want the even lower maintenance.

What do you guys think?

AnotherPacifist
Jul 02, 2009, 02:03 PM
All great ideas, but is the AI going to be using any of them?

How is the 4th Crusade addressed in the game?

3Miro
Jul 02, 2009, 02:22 PM
All great ideas, but is the AI going to be using any of them?

How is the 4th Crusade addressed in the game?

The AI will be easy enough to code (at least for the above cases). I will simply make the AI aim at a specific amount of Faith Points then use the GP accordingly. All benefits other than the defensive Crusade are passive (the AI doesn't have to think) and the defensive Crusade is: well if you are can ask for one, then just go ahead and ask.

4-th Crusade: If you have more gold than the Pope, you can pay gold and become the Crusade leader. Furthermore, you can "deviate" the Crusade towards the capital of any non-Catholic civ (i.e. Constantinople).

It doesn't happen for the AI, so I should probably change that to: If you have more gold than the Crusade leader. Right now the Pope is ridiculously rich. Also the AI takes advantage of that only in the case of Venice and Genoa (vs the Byzantines) and Spain and Portugal (vs Cordoba).

merijn_v1
Jul 03, 2009, 07:56 AM
Just an idea.

If you get 5 or 10 Faith Point, you get a guard (Papal Pikeman) in capital (you can move it). Because I like those Papal Pikemans in Charlemagne Scenario very much.

3Miro
Jul 03, 2009, 08:55 AM
Just an idea.

If you get 5 or 10 Faith Point, you get a guard (Papal Pikeman) in capital (you can move it). Because I like those Papal Pikemans in Charlemagne Scenario very much.

For now I don't want to implement new unit types and such. I basically want to make it so that Rome will have something to do with all those units that are getting build. The Pope will gift units build by him in Rome, then send them across the map and then gift them. That way Faith would be a competition between the Catholic players, there will be only so many units and they will all need to fight for the favor to get them.

BurnEmDown
Jul 03, 2009, 12:27 PM
But then civs who are closer to Rome will have a benefit. Maybe the Pope could "teleport" his units to catholic civ's capitals? Just an Idea here: If a catholic civ's capital is in danger, it could pay the Pope some gold or something and get a troop this way (if the Pope has any available), but that civ would lose some FP, so it would only be used in an emergency (It could be similar to mercenaries).

3Miro
Jul 03, 2009, 02:29 PM
But then civs who are closer to Rome will have a benefit. Maybe the Pope could "teleport" his units to catholic civ's capitals? Just an Idea here: If a catholic civ's capital is in danger, it could pay the Pope some gold or something and get a troop this way (if the Pope has any available), but that civ would lose some FP, so it would only be used in an emergency (It could be similar to mercenaries).

Gold for instant troops, that is called Mercenaries :) use that :)

For a big war, there will be an option for a defensive Crusade.

Wessel V1
Jul 03, 2009, 02:58 PM
What if units built by the Pope are automatically mercenaries? And that they are cheaper for catholic civs? IIRC, there is a thread in the customization forum about AI unit weights. I don't exactly understand how it works, but if I've understood well enough, it's possible to have the AI emphasize a certain unit. Maybe that could be the Papal Pikeman, or another special unit?

3Miro
Jul 03, 2009, 03:17 PM
What if units built by the Pope are automatically mercenaries? And that they are cheaper for catholic civs? IIRC, there is a thread in the customization forum about AI unit weights. I don't exactly understand how it works, but if I've understood well enough, it's possible to have the AI emphasize a certain unit. Maybe that could be the Papal Pikeman, or another special unit?

Mercenaries and gifts from the Pope are completely different things.

BurnEmDown
Jul 03, 2009, 08:20 PM
But I thought it could be something unique to the Catholic civs, and also sometimes there aren't any Mercenaries. If a catholic civ is in desperate need for a mercenary and there aren't any then it's probably going to lose a city or worse - which means it and the entire group of catholic civs will be weakened, which is "bad" for the pope, so the pope must keep a few units for hire for the desperate civs, if he doesn't his religion will weaken.
But I can see some situations which could go wrong: Burgundy getting mercenaries and warring with them on catholic France, and stuff like that.
So I guess we could forget about this idea and maybe implement it in the future with another idea to make it better.

AnotherPacifist
Jul 03, 2009, 08:45 PM
Gifts of money are always good...in fact, if one can limit the research rate of the Pope, he can dole out his tithe collections back to the faithful.
Hear ye, hear ye, come to Rome and redeem your faith mileage!

3Miro
Jul 03, 2009, 10:42 PM
Gifts of money are always good...in fact, if one can limit the research rate of the Pope, he can dole out his tithe collections back to the faithful.
Hear ye, hear ye, come to Rome and redeem your faith mileage!

Something along those lines. The next step would be to force the Pope to Theocracy + Religious Law only civic, which generates a ton of cash, which should go somewhere. Basically I want to make the Pope the trump card of the Catholics.

youtien
Jul 04, 2009, 02:58 AM
But, didn't the pope always be a manupilating bastard to all nations?

I think the Pope should more likely to force civs to adopt divine monarchy / religious law/ theocracy, and also, the cost of Divine Right is too high to induce human players to research. How about: the Pope, or any holy-city-owning civs will likely to gift Divine Rights, and civs who research DR by themselves get stability boost and +esiponage bonus, who adopt DR from other civs get penalty and will more likely to be civic/religion influenced.

Or: disallow influence civic/religion until Divine Rights. And civs with electorate get stability / espionage penalty against Divine Monarchy.

youtien
Jul 04, 2009, 03:17 AM
I think the most RFC-like way to represent "faith point" is via international conference. The Pope will hold the conference like AP / UN owner, and manipulate civs by asking for gold or civic change. If you are rich and faithful, you can bribe the pope to get more city via conference, or declare war on your enemy. Orthodoxy and Islam can have same system by a project granted by Divine Rights.

This way, we can let the Pope tech straightly to DR, therefore enable the system and crusade.

3Miro
Jul 04, 2009, 08:18 AM
The general opinion that I have met in people is that the AP mechanics are broken. Some people pointed out that the Pope never traded cities. City trade between Orthodox players is absolutely inaccurate. By its nature, the Orthodox church cannot "order" the secular authority to do anything.

I don't want to make the Pope all good, but I don't want to make him all bad either.

Tigranes
Jul 05, 2009, 01:02 AM
3Miro, can you please tell if it is technically possible for a human player to start a game as Pope's vassal? And if the answer is yes what do you personally think about renaming Germany to HRE starting as Rome's vassal with the goal to break away by 1500 AD as a new UHV?

Tigranes
Jul 05, 2009, 02:12 AM
Also, unrelated question about current Germany starting date and place. Why 940 and why Frankfurt? The Kingdom of East Francia have lasted from 843 to the coronation of Duke Henry I of Saxony in 919; the Holy Roman Empire is thought to begin with the Coronation of Emperor Otto I in Rome on February 2, 962. Regensburg was the capital of East Francia. Aachen was much more important than Frankfurt.

3Miro
Jul 05, 2009, 12:04 PM
On the starting year question, someone else would have to answer. Some of the decisions were taken 1 - 2 years ago.

In the Civ IV mechanics, it is impossible for a human player to be the vassal of an AI player. Besides breaking free would be eas since it only requires land and population, Rome has not enough of either.

BurnEmDown
Jul 05, 2009, 03:51 PM
How about a voluntary vassal? That way You'll only break off if you turn down the pope's request, that seems pretty much historically correct no?

3Miro
Jul 05, 2009, 04:45 PM
How about a voluntary vassal? That way You'll only break off if you turn down the pope's request, that seems pretty much historically correct no?

In the Civ IV mechanics, it is impossible for a human player to be the vassal of an AI player. Sorry.

merijn_v1
Jul 06, 2009, 03:22 AM
In the Civ IV mechanics, it is impossible for a human player to be the vassal of an AI player. Sorry.


I did it one time in the 1000AD scenario. I played the Aztecs and made myself vassal of the first Civ I met with WB. (I was vassal of France.)

3Miro
Jul 06, 2009, 07:22 AM
I did it one time in the 1000AD scenario. I played the Aztecs and made myself vassal of the first Civ I met with WB. (I was vassal of France.)

You can force it, but I am sure there were many many problems.

merijn_v1
Jul 06, 2009, 07:44 AM
You can force it, but I am sure there were many many problems.

Yeah, Louis demanded me to give him half of my resources.:lol: But he gave me al lot of techs.

Fanatik
Jul 08, 2009, 03:08 AM
On emperor there are two many barbarians in northern Germany. I have seen the Ai destroyed twice on the second turn. When I played I founded on hills, massed units and upgraded archers, but was easily destroyed by about 20 barbarian units.

The respawning in France- As burgundy France declared war on me and I ended up taking Paris. They collapsed but not long after all of my cities flipped back to france except capitol Dijon. This makes no sense.

Th Byzantine stability issue on Emperor. NO problem on monarch bust build courthouses in all cities, but cant get out of a stability Spiral on Emperor. If all outside core collapses, can stability eventually recover (building economy, etc) This should be possible but I assume there will just be permanent instability.

Nice to see technology gifting from Justinian, though I dont know if this is historical. It makes sence to me that the pope would be open to givfting some of the religious techs. How about some missionaries as well?

Spain is a very enjoyable emperor game, Burgundy and france are also doable on this level, but I wonder about the English. 5 colonial projects along with collapsing france? You will probably also have to take down the protuguesse, spanish and dutch. Not my kind of game.

One more comment, actually an idea. How about a difficulty setting between monarch and emperor. I am sure this has been touched on before, but I hate to have to play a perfect game to have a challenging one.

Wessel V1
Jul 08, 2009, 03:38 AM
Since RFCE is still in the alpha stage, there is currently no point in having another difficulty level; we first want to balance Monarch. The readme says that Emperor is harder than Deity (at least, the modifiers), which is true. However, I think that, once we release our 1.0, we might consider another difficulty level, but that's up to 3Miro end Sedna17.

jessiecat
Jul 08, 2009, 04:56 AM
Since RFCE is still in the alpha stage, there is currently no point in having another difficulty level; we first want to balance Monarch. The readme says that Emperor is harder than Deity (at least, the modifiers), which is true. However, I think that, once we release our 1.0, we might consider another difficulty level, but that's up to 3Miro end Sedna17.

Most of us mere mortals (average players) have trouble enough winning with some civs on Monarch anyway. So you are right. It's better to have things balanced properly at the Monarch level before we move on to beta or 1.0. I know there are some players who enjoy the challenge of Emperor and can be quite successful at it. But that's not why I play Civ. Interesting gameplay, good graphics and historical accuracy are far more important to me than just trying to beat higher and higher difficulty levels just for the sake of it. That's just me. Civ players having been enjoying the game for over 15 years for plenty of other reasons. That's the genious of Sid Meier's Civilization series, isn't it? :)

AnotherPacifist
Jul 08, 2009, 06:01 AM
Fanatik, read the emperor playtesting thread. (and yes, I've found the same things as you did, but I've never had the Byzantines give me anything but grief. And people have mentioned too early respawns as a problem. I've built Helsingfors as the Norse simply because I can't deal with all the barbs on the mainland. The pope does send Catholic missionaries around later)

Lean
Jul 14, 2009, 11:31 PM
Hello there. The Rhye's section is unamilar territory, so I'm not too sure if this question has been asked already, or is planned for future releases. I was just wondering if the Vandals, Beber, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, ect. will be included in future releases. In my opinion, it would help jump start many civlizations, instead of them having to startfrom scratch. IF they would be added, then the Byzantine's UHV goals could be changed slightly, to reflect Justinian's renovatio imperii.

I also want to thank you guys for developing Rhye's of Europe. It cost me many hours of my life, but every minute was worth it. Thanks once again for taking the time to read my post,


Lean

Panopticon
Jul 15, 2009, 06:33 AM
Hello there. The Rhye's section is unamilar territory, so I'm not too sure if this question has been asked already, or is planned for future releases. I was just wondering if the Vandals, Beber, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, ect. will be included in future releases. In my opinion, it would help jump start many civlizations, instead of them having to startfrom scratch. IF they would be added, then the Byzantine's UHV goals could be changed slightly, to reflect Justinian's renovatio imperii.

I'm not sure, but I think the scenario begins after the Germanic migratory period.

Michael Vick
Jul 20, 2009, 05:19 PM
What about olives? Like in the Pelloponesian War mod in Warlords?

3 in Spain: 1 in the Jaen area North of Granada, and another further SW near Cordoba, and another in between Malaga and Cadiz.
3 in Italy: 1 on the plains hill on Sardinia, another on a hill somewhere near Reggio, and another on Sicily.
1 or 2 in Greece: On the Kalamata tile and/or next to Athens.

BurnEmDown
Jul 21, 2009, 10:28 AM
There should be some in the Greek islands as well, so that Venice and Genoa will get them and trade them around with other Europeans.

Michael Vick
Jul 21, 2009, 12:10 PM
yes, 1 in crete, anywhere else?

SF23
Jul 22, 2009, 11:07 PM
Does RFCE really need another food resource? There is already apples, barley, and honey on top of the regular resources. IMO there are enough resources without olives.

jessiecat
Jul 23, 2009, 02:20 AM
Does RFCE really need another food resource? There is already apples, barley, and honey on top of the regular resources. IMO there are enough resources without olives.

I totally agree. We have quite enough resources now.

3Miro
Jul 23, 2009, 02:52 AM
I totally agree. We have quite enough resources now.

Some of the point of the Colonies was to give extra resources in the resource poor and very unhealthy Europe. We seem to have perhaps too many resources.

youtien
Jul 23, 2009, 06:52 AM
Then, where's potatoes? I only saw it in the WB. Shall we put it in next version?

Michael Vick
Jul 23, 2009, 07:27 AM
I meant olives as a health/wealth luxury resource, not food. It would add variety to Venice and Genoa's options and can stimulate more trade. right now, resource trade is a bit blah because the areas for each civ are so big that you can pretty much have every one of the basic resources without trading. The only exceptions being the tiniest countries. Olives would be like a region unique resource, like Ivory in the Northern Islands, fur in the far North, or Silk in the East.

Now name me a Mediterranean unique resource...
We don't have one.

Olives:
+1:health: +2:commerce:

EDIT: Hey where are the potatoes?

jessiecat
Jul 23, 2009, 08:43 AM
Now name me a Mediterranean unique resource...
We don't have one.

Olives:
+1:health: +2:commerce:

EDIT: Hey where are the potatoes?

Check the map. There's lots of Meditteranean-unique resources

1. Rice in Spain and Italy after 1000AD

2. Coffee, Incense and Silk in the Middle East

3. Cotton and Incense in Egypt and N. Africa

EDIT: And as far as Potatoes go, there wouldn't be any would there? They weren't native to Europe and were only introduced from the Americas in the the 1500's.

3Miro
Jul 23, 2009, 09:16 AM
Check the map. There's lots of Meditteranean-unique resources

1. Rice in Spain and Italy after 1000AD

2. Coffee, Incense and Silk in the Middle East

3. Cotton and Incense in Egypt and N. Africa

EDIT: And as far as Potatoes go, there wouldn't be any would there? They weren't native to Europe and were only introduced from the Americas in the the 1500's.

We should have some Potatoes spawn around 1500AD or so.

jessiecat
Jul 23, 2009, 09:31 AM
We should have some Potatoes spawn around 1500AD or so.

That sounds about right but it should be more like the 1580's starting in England, France and Spain.

Michael Vick
Jul 23, 2009, 09:55 AM
@jessiecat: lots? Only one I can think of is wine, that exists as far as Bordeaux. Olives are just going to encourage more trade, not severely make it easier to keep cities healthy. Heck, the bonus could be reduced to +1:commerce:.

jessiecat
Jul 23, 2009, 09:59 AM
@jessiecat: lots? Only one I can think of is wine, that exists as far as Bordeaux. Olives are just going to encourage more trade, not severely make it easier to keep cities healthy. Heck, the bonus could be reduced to +1:commerce:.

Did you even bother to read my post? I named rice, cotton, coffee, incense and silk.

Isn't 5 lots to you? You said there were none:lol:

Michael Vick
Jul 23, 2009, 10:14 AM
Oh, I didn't think you were referring to Egypt and the middle East as the Meditteranean. :lol: You have to admit, cotton, coffee, incense, and silk aren't the first things one thinks of when you say "Mediterranean"
I guess rice qualifies, but that's just Valencia and Naples right? Spain wouldn't trade their one rice resource and who would get the rice in Italy? And no, two rice is not lots to me :lol:

jessiecat
Jul 23, 2009, 10:20 AM
Oh, I didn't think you were referring to Egypt and the middle East as the Meditteranean. :lol: You have to admit, cotton, coffee, incense, and silk aren't the first things one thinks of when you say "Mediterranean"
I guess rice qualifies, but that's just Valencia and Naples right? Spain wouldn't trade their one rice resource and who would get the rice in Italy? And no, two rice is not lots to me :lol:

At least you can admit I was right. Now I can say I actually agree with you about olives if a suitable icon can be found. I've spent enough time in Spain and Italy over the years to realise its importance. OK?

Michael Vick
Jul 23, 2009, 10:22 AM
Yes, you were right, and I don't really remember but... I think it was all in the Pelloponesian War mod... I'll check.

Michael Vick
Jul 23, 2009, 11:00 AM
Yes, it's all there. On the right are lone olives, on the left is with the plantation. The icon is just a big green olive, it's all done, no work required, just adding it to the mod

jessiecat
Jul 23, 2009, 11:06 AM
Yes, it's all there. On the right are lone olives, on the left is with the plantation. The icon is just a big green olive, it's all done, no work required, just adding it to the mod

Then there should be no trouble addng it. Let's do it.

AnotherPacifist
Jul 23, 2009, 11:57 AM
Can olives please not grow on hills but plains? Places like Naples and Sardinia already have limited production, and I never get to use those 2 plains above Naples unless I get public works AND settle Brindisi (to irrigate the farm).

From wikipedia:
A calcareous soil, however dry or poor, seems best adapted to its healthy development, though the tree will grow in any light soil, and even on clay if well drained; but, as remarked by Pliny, the plant is more liable to disease on rich soils, and the oil is inferior to the produce of the poorer and more rocky ground.

So for example, I would replace the salt in Crete with olives, and give Naples olives in either of the 2 plains north of it, and give Tunis olives in the plains SE of it (coastal is better for olives apparently).

Michael Vick
Jul 23, 2009, 12:27 PM
They can grow on hills or plains, in the mod I got this from, olives were mostly on hills, but some exceptions could be made for Naples or Tunis.
Yes, coastal is good but I think the best is a tile a way from the coast. Spain is the leading producer in olives and most of them are grown further inland, I did try to keep the others coastal though. Any other suggestions?

jessiecat
Jul 23, 2009, 01:06 PM
Olives should feature in most of the Med from the Middle East to Anatolia, Greece, Italy and Spain. Also less so in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt. Where I've seen them in those countries it's usually been on the slopes of hills rather than in rich alluvial soil. Apparently they do much better on drier, rockier soil that is well-drained. So hills away from the coast seems best to me.