That's where I put them, but to get the right ratio of olives and include all the regions would be hard, if I put one in Morocco, then "Morocco has 1/2 the amount of olives that Greece does, which is a bit off. If we did that then Spain would get 4, Italy another extra, Greece another extra, etc. I thought of Africa, but we would have ended up with too many olives, how many total should we have, maximum?

That's where I put them, but to get the right ratio of olives and include all the regions would be hard, if I put one in Morocco, then "Morocco has 1/2 the amount of olives that Greece does, which is a bit off. If we did that then Spain would get 4, Italy another extra, Greece another extra, etc. I thought of Africa, but we would have ended up with too many olives, how many total should we have, maximum?

2 per Peninsula and 1 or 2 in Africa. That is tops.

Otherwise there is enough for everyone and it looses the meaning of competition.

I would suggest this;

Spain - 2
Italy -2
Greece -1
Anatolia -1
Levant - 1
Egypt - 1
Tunisia - 1
Morocco -1
----------------
Total -10

Arabia already has too many resources. I would get rid of the salt south of Damascus.

North Africa in general has a lot of wasted resources (like gems and such). Can we concentrate some of them closer to the shore?

Morocco and Egypt are out, they produce way too little to be of significance. Egypt providing half as many olives as Spain? Let's get realistic. 8 would be good, if more are in order they should be added to Spain, Greece, or Italy, in that respective order of priority.

Morocco and Egypt are out, they produce way too little to be of significance. Egypt providing half as many olives as Spain? Let's get realistic. 8 would be good, if more are in order they should be added to Spain, Greece, or Italy, in that respective order of priority.

I don't know the history of olives in the Mediterranean, but in terms of gameplay:

1 = The Civ had it in abundance
2 = The Civ exported a lot of it

The tile with resource "olives" or "wheat" is not the only tile that produces that thing, just a tile with heavy production of it. Regular farms do produce something, right?

In general I agree to reduce the number of Olives. Make that as little as possible.

Right, and Morocco and Egypt did not have them in abundance, tunisia is stretching it. And no, farms only produce little slices of bread. :lol:

Are we going to have civ-specific great people eventually? If someone could give me the current list I could start working on it. :)

Are we going to have civ-specific great people eventually? If someone could give me the current list I could start working on it. :)

We have a list, I just don't think we can really make it civ specific. We just have a bunch of great people that cover all the civs, but playing French there is no guarantee that you would get anyone from France.

This one guy made a mod that made sure you'd only get great peeps from your civilization, can we do that for RFC Europe? If some civs are lacking in people I could work on that.

This one guy made a mod that made sure you'd only get great peeps from your civilization, can we do that for RFC Europe? If some civs are lacking in people I could work on that.

Do you know where the mod is, if I can just copy the code it would be easier, otherwise I would rather do the dynamic civ names first (after come cleaning on the Faith)

Do you know where the mod is, if I can just copy the code it would be easier, otherwise I would rather do the dynamic civ names first (after come cleaning on the Faith)

Right here, it was on the wiki. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=199344

It's kind of old though, and I think the download link isn't even working. If you can obtain the code necessary to get civ specific great people, I can do the names myself.

Right here, it was on the wiki. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=199344

It's kind of old though, and I think the download link isn't even working. If you can obtain the code necessary to get civ specific great people, I can do the names myself.

What they have done works, but is very bad in terms of the code. If we follow what they are doing, we need to add about 150 more units to the mod ... nope.

I will see if I can figure out another way.

What they have done works, but is very bad in terms of the code. If we follow what they are doing, we need to add about 150 more units to the mod ... nope.

I will see if I can figure out another way.

I'm not sure what the problem is. We've already got at least 2 or 3 Great People in every category of every civ in the mod. At least 5 per category per civ in some cases. I know, because I spent weeks researching them and a few more have been added since. Do we really need to code each to arise only for a specific civ? I don't think you'll have an easy time coding that or will even have the time to do it.. Nor do I see any real necessity for it.

I'm not sure what the problem is. We've already got at least 2 or 3 Great People in every category of every civ in the mod. At least 5 per category per civ in some cases. I know, because I spent weeks researching them and a few more have been added since. Do we really need to code each to arise only for a specific civ? I don't think you'll have an easy time coding that or will even have the time to do it.. Nor do I see any real necessity for it.

We have enough Great People, coding them nation per nation is the issue. The way the mod has it, it basically has distinct units French Great General, French Great Prophet, German Great Genera, German Great Prophet ... All those are separate units in the game. If nothing else, they will make civilopdedia look really ugly.

I want to make it: A Great Engineer is born in Germany -> pick a name from the German list. That way we would have only one Great Engineer Unit.

We have enough Great People, coding them nation per nation is the issue. The way the mod has it, it basically has distinct units French Great General, French Great Prophet, German Great Genera, German Great Prophet ... All those are separate units in the game. If nothing else, they will make civilopdedia look really ugly.

I want to make it: A Great Engineer is born in Germany -> pick a name from the German list. That way we would have only one Great Engineer Unit.

OK. That's pretty easy to do if we confine ourselves to a max. of 3 GPs of each category for each nation. I can take the present list and relist them as per 1,2,3 for each civ. Would that do? There is a full list if michael wants to look at it.

OK. That's pretty easy to do if we confine ourselves to a max. of 3 GPs of each category for each nation. I can take the present list and relist them as per 1,2,3 for each civ. Would that do? There is a full list if michael wants to look at it.

The list yes, now I have to force the game engine to pick depending on the nation.

Jessiecat and Michael Vick, the file posted by Jessiecat is important, but a more important file is: RFCEurope\Assets\XML\Units\Civ4UnitInfos.xml

Towards the en of the file, you have things that look like:
<UnitInfo>

<Class>UNITCLASS_SCIENTIST</Class>

<Type>UNIT_SCIENTIST</Type>

<UniqueNames>

<UniqueName>TXT_KEY_GREAT_PERSON_MERIT_PTAH</UniqueName>

<UniqueName>TXT_KEY_GREAT_PERSON_XI_LING_SHI</UniqueName>

<UniqueName>TXT_KEY_GREAT_PERSON_NABU_RIMANNI</UniqueName>

<UniqueName>TXT_KEY_GREAT_PERSON_SOCRATES</UniqueName>

<UniqueName>TXT_KEY_GREAT_PERSON_PLATO</UniqueName>
<UniqueName>TXT_KEY_GREAT_PERSON_ARISTOTLE</UniqueName>
<UniqueName>TXT_KEY_GREAT_PERSON_EUCLID</UniqueName>
<UniqueName>TXT_KEY_GREAT_PERSON_PTOLEMY</UniqueName>
...............................................

You have one such block for engineers, scientist, prophets, spies ....

If you can take those names and order them by nations, i.e. put the three Burgundian engineers first, then the three Byzantine ones then the three French ones and so on (and if you can even do that in chronological order, it would be even better). Then I can code it so that only specific names are taken for the specific nation.

You can add tags that look like:
<!-- Burgundy starts here -->
<UniqueName>TXT_KEY_GREAT_PERSON_MERIT_PTAH</UniqueName>
<UniqueName>TXT_KEY_GREAT_PERSON_XI_LING_SHI</UniqueName>
<!-- Byzantium starts here -->
<UniqueName>TXT_KEY_GREAT_PERSON_MERIT_PTAH</UniqueName>
<UniqueName>TXT_KEY_GREAT_PERSON_XI_LING_SHI</UniqueName>
..................................

I this makes some sense.

You mean this one?

You mean this one?

Yes, that's the one.

Yes, that's the one.

OK. I'll start working on some on some lists in the morning. It's gone midnight and my pumpkin awaits.
Don't tell her I said that.;)

Oh BTW. Were the olive files any use to you? I can upload any bit of Warlords code you need.

OK. I'll start working on some on some lists in the morning. It's gone midnight and my pumpkin awaits.
Don't tell her I said that.;)

Oh BTW. Were the olive files any use to you? I can upload any bit of Warlords code you need.

The Olive Graphics is somewhat lousy, but other than that everything works. When I get out the new version, you and everyone else, should look at the graphics and say what you think.

Olives look great, although they seem to vary in appearance from place to place. In my game the Arabian olive plantation in the Levant looked very healthy and prosperous with big green olives, whereas the Andalusian one near Qurtubah looked rather unappealing, with brown olives and wilted trees.. Also I got some locations wrong in the map, right now there is an olive resource on the Tunis spawn, which actually makes the city look really nice from an artistic point of view, but would probably be better off in plantation form. Also, I seriously think that Spain and Sardinia should each get one more olive resource, this way Genoa can get them and Spain can actually trade the olives to more than one civ. I'll make some changes in the next map I make, which will include that Verily's changes to the Austrian and German maps.

Any more thoughts on the Navy discussions that we had in the art thread? This issue should be resolved soon so players can start getting used to the new system. Also because I can't stand to see triremes and cogges so popular in the mediterranean.

Olive trees, like most other resources and farms in fact, look different when they are being used by a city. So, Cordoba doesn't use it's olive resource, and Arabia does. It's a nice touch and also useful to see which tiles the city works without go to the city screen.

I just had another idea. Currently, the diplomatic modifier "you have fallen under the sway of a heathen religion" and "we care for brothers and sisters of the faith" is dependent on era and leader. With the new faith point system, we may also include the number of faith points. So, a civ with lots of faith points will be loved more by civs with the same religion, but hated more by civs with a different religion. Thoughts?

I just had another idea. Currently, the diplomatic modifier "you have fallen under the sway of a heathen religion" and "we care for brothers and sisters of the faith" is dependent on era and leader. With the new faith point system, we may also include the number of faith points. So, a civ with lots of faith points will be loved more by civs with the same religion, but hated more by civs with a different religion. Thoughts?

It does depend on the leader and it does depend on the Faith Points.

Olives look great, although they seem to vary in appearance from place to place. In my game the Arabian olive plantation in the Levant looked very healthy and prosperous with big green olives, whereas the Andalusian one near Qurtubah looked rather unappealing, with brown olives and wilted trees.. Also I got some locations wrong in the map, right now there is an olive resource on the Tunis spawn, which actually makes the city look really nice from an artistic point of view, but would probably be better off in plantation form. Also, I seriously think that Spain and Sardinia should each get one more olive resource, this way Genoa can get them and Spain can actually trade the olives to more than one civ. I'll make some changes in the next map I make, which will include that Verily's changes to the Austrian and German maps.

Any more thoughts on the Navy discussions that we had in the art thread? This issue should be resolved soon so players can start getting used to the new system. Also because I can't stand to see triremes and cogges so popular in the mediterranean.

Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. You had all the olives right next to Cordoba, that leaves all the hills without mines and drastically lowers the production. I will add olives to Sardinia, but I think 2 is enough for Spain.

It does depend on the leader and it does depend on the Faith Points.

Excellent.:)

EDIT: then that would probably be the reason why the catholic civs (I'm orthodox and past the Great Schism) are both happy and unhappy with my religion at the same time.

Hi, I just have a couple questions about the philosophy used to choose the civs in this mod. I've noticed that, for the most part, there are two civs for each region or language group, i.e. France vs. Burgundy, Kiev vs. Moscow, which is a great way to add conflict to the game. However, some of the choices seem a bit odd. For example, France has Burgundy to compete with to unite Gaul, but Germany is just Germany, from start to finish. This is a little bit odd, as France has been united for a very long time, while Germany was more of a concept than a nation for many years. The replacement of a German nation with Prussia and Saxony would reflect the historical situation better. Italy is properly represented by city states in this mod, however, the choice of civs strikes me as strange. Why have two North Italian city states playable, and have the rest of the peninsula as independents? I think replacing Genoa with a more historically and geographically appropriate Civ, such as the Kingdom of Naples, Sicily, or Sardinia, would be much more appropriate. I understand there have been dozens of pages of discussion, and I've come late to the game, but if someone could explain these choices to me, I'd a bit more satisfied playing this already excellent mod!

Welcome to the mod and thanks for your comments. As someone who was involved in the early discussions about choosing the playable civs, I'll try to answer your questions. It may seem that there's an intention to have regional pairs of rivals but I think that's coincidental. I think the main criteria was to choose civs that were most prominent in the early Middle Ages (1000AD to 1300AD) but to keep them to a bare minimum per area and representative of regional rivalries rather than purely historical.
For example, of the main Italian city states that were developing at that time we decided to stick to two of the most important rivals that were some way apart geographically. After long discussion we decided on Venice and Genoa over Florence, Lucca, Pisa or Milan. We decided against Naples, Sicily and Sardinia as they weren't nearly as important as the northern city states at that time. The Papal Sates are represented by an independent and unplayable Rome. The Papacy plays an important and unique role in the mod, as you will soon see.
By the same logic, the power of Muslim Andalusia in the 900's is countered by the developing Spanish Christian states which are represented by the Kingdom of Leon. We could have included others like Navarre, Castille and Aragon but decided on Leon as it was the earliest. And the space available in Iberia didn't seem enough to accomodate 3 or more civs plus Portugal when it spawns. In the end 2 rival civs seemed appropriate.
The problem of Germany was argued over for months but we couldn't come to a consensus about which 2 or 3 civs to include in such a confined space hemmed on all sides by Burgudy, France and later Poland, Austria and the Netherlands. The favourites were Saxony based at Frankfurt or Koln and Bavaria based at Augsbug, which flips to them when they spawn. Prussia was ruled out because it seems a late starter for what we wanted. The temporary solution was to represent Germany as one civ spawning around Frankfurt and Augsburg as an independent city but it's a poor compromise, I admit. I think we'll have to reconsider the German start again very soon. My choice would be Saxony and Bavaria, as I described above.
I hope that answers some of your points and we do welcome as much imput and suggestions as you can give. This mod is still very much in development and also needs play-testers at every stage. Again, welcome to the project. Cheers.:)

Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. You had all the olives right next to Cordoba, that leaves all the hills without mines and drastically lowers the production. I will add olives to Sardinia, but I think 2 is enough for Spain.

If you're going to put one in Sardinia then there should be another one in Spain, anywhere in southern Spain- maybe next to Seville or Valencia. Italy and the islands should have the same amount of olives as Spain. 2 in the islands alone would throw off the balance IMO. So either add both or keep it as is, I'm fine with either.

If you're going to put one in Sardinia then there should be another one in Spain, anywhere in southern Spain- maybe next to Seville or Valencia. Italy and the islands should have the same amount of olives as Spain. 2 in the islands alone would throw off the balance IMO. So either add both or keep it as is, I'm fine with either.

Hi Mike. I guess you've noticed that our old comrade st. lucifer is back after a long break. But no modders for now as 3Miro won't be available for several weeks. So I guess the next Alpha will have to wait till the end of this month when sedna17 is back. Just to let you know.:)

Yep, I read the RFCE veteran modder homecoming thread.

I will try to release Alpha 6.5 (what better chance to learn coding). Apart from new maps, Venice new UHV and the fix in the Polish one, what else needs fixing in your opinion (tho I only guarantee for the first)?

Could you maybe change the Burgundy spawn date to 880? It might be too hard to make the rest of the changes that go along with it like starting units, techs, etc. though.
Also move the olive resource in Tunisia 1 tile East, as right now it's on the spawn tile of Tunis.
There's too much AA access near Gibraltar right now, take out the one off Rabat and leave the one next to Cadiz plz. :)

Great work guys, what you guys have done is really impressive, but I was wondering if you have a forum just for downloading newest versions of this mod?:)

Great work guys, what you guys have done is really impressive, but I was wondering if you have a forum just for downloading newest versions of this mod?:)

RFC Europe Files thread. Ist. post. You can download the latest version there. (Alpha 6). Make sure you have the 3.19 version of BTS installed first.:)

where can I find this RFC Europe files thread?

where can I find this RFC Europe files thread?

Same page as this thread is, about halfway done. Anyway I'll bump it up to the top.

Could you maybe change the Burgundy spawn date to 880? It might be too hard to make the rest of the changes that go along with it like starting units, techs, etc. though.
Also move the olive resource in Tunisia 1 tile East, as right now it's on the spawn tile of Tunis.
There's too much AA access near Gibraltar right now, take out the one off Rabat and leave the one next to Cadiz plz. :)

The first one is beyond my capabilities (so you will have to wait for 3Miro or sedna). The WB changes will be done surely (I prefered moving the olive 1N rather than 1E, it would 'kill' the grassland by river tile ;))

Do you think Valencia is in the right place on the map? I think moving it 1N would be better. What about you?

And where's potato? Will grocer include olives?

Do you think Valencia is in the right place on the map? I think moving it 1N would be better. What about you?

There's a lot of coast between Valencia and Barcelona. You don't want it too far north. Anyway, both tiles are tagged as Valencia AFAIK.

And where's potato? Will grocer include olives?

Potatoes don't appear in Europe until nearly 1600, as they weren't imported from the Americas until then.

There's a lot of coast between Valencia and Barcelona. You don't want it too far north. Anyway, both tiles are tagged as Valencia AFAIK.

I am talking about the indy city of Valencia, not the city names given on the tiles ;)

I was wondering, if at the right time like around the time of the Cloumbian Exchange do new "New World" resources appear on the map? for example potatoes for the Irish etc?

I am talking about the indy city of Valencia, not the city names given on the tiles ;)

Placing it more north would leave very little room to fit in the cities of Tortosa and Tarragona between there and Barcelona's 4 tiles. There isn't room for even one more city there now.

I was wondering, if at the right time like around the time of the Cloumbian Exchange do new "New World" resources appear on the map? for example potatoes for the Irish etc?

They should appear in England, France, Spain and Germany after 1600. They didn't reach Ireland until much later. I don't think that's been coded in yet. And I don't think there were any other New World resources grown in Europe until long after 1800.

Placing it more north would leave very little room to fit in the cities of Tortosa and Tarragona between there and Barcelona's 4 tiles. There isn't room for even one more city there now.

Well, I suppose you are right. On the other hand, moving Valencia one N means that you can get a better city south of it.

Potatoes don't appear in Europe until nearly 1600, as they weren't imported from the Americas until then.


I know. But when will it be introduced? After a civ finished a N.America colonial program?

I know. But when will it be introduced? After a civ finished a N.America colonial program?

Yes, AFAIK. As soon as our modders get back. A couple of weeks?

Yes, moving Valencia North would allow for a better Cartagena or Alicante, but it all comes down to which place best reflects it's position in real life IMO. Barcelona is a bit powerful though.. moving Valencia would help that.

On the topic of New World resources, I don't know if this is accurate at all but I do remember that in base RFC corn spawned North of Lisbon in the early 1700's.

EDIT: After a closer look, you're absolutely right, micbic, Valencia should be one tile Norther.

Yes, moving Valencia North would allow for a better Cartagena or Alicante, but it all comes down to which place best reflects it's position in real life IMO. Barcelona is a bit powerful though.. moving Valencia would help that.

On the topic of New World resources, I don't know if this is accurate at all but I do remember that in base RFC corn spawned North of Lisbon in the early 1700's.

EDIT: After a closer look, you're absolutely right, micbic, Valencia should be one tile Norther.

Having looked at our map again and compared it to maps of Spain, I concede the point. Yes, micbic is right.
It should move 1 tile north.

What if we add that little piece of land stretching out Eastward from where Valencia used to be? Where Denia is? It would give Valencia another land tile to work with, which is good, considering it's production is terribly low in the early game.

What if we add that little piece of land stretching out Eastward from where Valencia used to be? Where Denia is? It would give Valencia another land tile to work with, which is good, considering it's production is terribly low in the early game.

Maybe that would work. A half tile anyway. The problem with your proposed location is that it takes in 2 mountains to the NE which will be 2 useless tiles. I don't find the production in it's present location that bad really. The new spot could make it worse as it'll miss one of the fish and the fruit which is good for growth.

A plains tile with a forest would be best, right? Anybody care to suggest a resource?

Dunno. Perhaps resource-less?
@jessiecat: perhaps the fish could be moved north as well. As for the fruit...let Cartagena have something! :p

I was actually thinking moving the fruit to that tile.. you know, to give Valencia the food boost. One thing is certain though, Valencia's fat cross MUST have fish, clam, rice, and olive (oil), the necessary ingredients for the paella. :D

I was actually thinking moving the fruit to that tile.. you know, to give Valencia the food boost. One thing is certain though, Valencia's fat cross MUST have fish, clam, rice, and olive (oil), the necessary ingredients for the paella. :D

I was all for putting in a couple of spices to represent saffron, but was overruled.


What's the agricultural production like around Cartagena in real life?

Same as most of the area, wheat and olives, a little citrus and wine too.

Same as most of the area, wheat and olives, a little citrus and wine too.

@ st. lucifer. Saffron was not native. It was introduced by the Arabs who got it from the Indians.

@ Michael Vick. AFAIK the area between Valencia and Malaga is and was largely desert scrubland. There were little indigenous resources of that kind until the Arabs introduced advanced irrigation.
BTW. How can you have the orginal Paella Valenciana without rabbit and chicken? Not a clam in sight.:lol:

@ st. lucifer. Saffron was not native. It was introduced by the Arabs who got it from the Indians.

Another example of 'all good things in Europe were introduced by the Arabs'? Damn, I may come around to your position on Cordoba yet. ;)

I wasn't seriously objecting to being overruled.


@ Michael Vick. AFAIK the area between Valencia and Malaga is and was largely desert scrubland. There were little indigenous resources of that kind until the Arabs introduced advanced irrigation.
BTW. How can you have the orginal Paella Valenciana without rabbit and chicken? Not a clam in sight.:lol:

Valencia should definitely have the fruit in its BFC - what do we do for Cartagena?

It was a particularly important trading city in the 1700's, up there with Cadiz and Bilbao. So I'd say give it some luxury resources, something that will make it a sufficiently wealthy city.

It was a particularly important trading city in the 1700's, up there with Cadiz and Bilbao. So I'd say give it some luxury resources, something that will make it a sufficiently wealthy city.

Coastal Mediterranean city, dry climate - scrubland; hills.

Dye? There aren't any in Iberia, if I remember right.

Coastal Mediterranean city, dry climate - scrubland; hills.

Dye? There aren't any in Iberia, if I remember right.

Valencia was one of the principal Meditteranean commercial ports, reaching its peak of prosperity in the 15thC.
It exported mainly olive oil, rice, wheat and citrus fruit and was the most important importer of silk in Western Europe. We've already got rice and fish there so we could add olives and fruit.

I know this has been suggested but I agree with Micheal that the 15thC. "Lonja de la Seda" (Silk Exchange) in Valencia should be added as a World Wonder, if we can find the art. I've been a couple of times and it's stunning inside. (Photos below).

I know this has been suggested but I agree with Micheal that the 15thC. "Lonja de la Seda" (Silk Exchange) in Valencia should be added as a World Wonder, if we can find the art. I've been a couple of times and it's stunning inside. (Photos below).

I like the wonder, but what would be his power? If its providing silk it looks too much like Marco Polo-thing.

I like the wonder, but what would be his power? If its providing silk it looks too much like Marco Polo-thing.


I'm not sure, but something to with luxuries and trade routes, I guess.

Why havent I seen any rice resources on the map? Is it out as a resource?
BTW, the Denia tile turned out at an olive plain hill. Is it OK?

Why havent I seen any rice resources on the map? Is it out as a resource?
BTW, the Denia tile turned out at an olive plain hill. Is it OK?

After 1500 their spawn a rice resource near Valencia. And AFAIK also one near Alexandria.

After 1500 their spawn a rice resource near Valencia. And AFAIK also one near Alexandria.

3 rice. One NE of Valencia, one near Alexandria, and one in N. Italy, all after 1000AD.

@micbic. Olives on the Denia tile would be fine. And fruit moved North as well, if possible.

3 rice. One NE of Valencia, one near Alexandria, and one in N. Italy, all after 1000AD.

Damn!!! Now I only get €500 instead of €16000. :lol:

Damn!!! Now I only get €500 instead of €16000. :lol:

Eh????:confused:

The Denia tile was moved finally 1 SE of previous Valencia location, as 1 E would mean Valencia would have no access to the sea
EDIT: 500th post!!!:yeah:

Ok, but I don't know about the olive being there. I believe that Spain should have that third olive, but now I feel that they're bunched up in the East too much. The Jaen area (North of Granada) is definitely the most important olive location, so that one needs to stay. The problem is there is now another olives resource relatively close to it where as there isn't a single resource West of Cordoba. Somebody suggest something plz

Lonja de la Seda?? I don't remember ever saying anything about that.. :lol: It's ok though, I'm all for the addition of any new wonder anywhere. A point I'd like to make is that if it was the most important silk exchange in Western Europe then why would the Marco Polo's Embassy give silk and not the Lonja?

However, many people have probably never heard of the Lonja de la Seda, and I think if we're gonna give Spain another wonder there are probably a couple of better candidates. I did once suggest the Torre del Oro, in fact maybe that's what you confused the Lonja with, jessiecat- "Tower of Gold", "Exchange of Silk", it's all the same ;)

There's also the Cathedral of Seville. It was the largest Cathedral in the world for more than a hundred years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torre_Del_Oro
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Seville

So maybe it wasn't you who suggested it. Maybe it was Jedi. And yes even I know the difference between "Tower" and "Exchange" in Spanish. And I have visited both places, Thanks anyway, Michael.

I'm going to continue to vote against the inclusion of further Iberian wonders. We've got a lot of them, and you could argue for the inclusion of any of hundreds of magnificent buildings across Europe.

All of the buildings mentioned are spectacular, but so are Chartres Cathedral, Malbork Castle, Westminster Abbey, and many, many more.

We've got a lot of wonders and a ton of colonial projects, so there's no shortage of expensive things to build. I'm not totally opposed to adding more stuff, but I worry that we might end up a little overstuffed, if we aren't there already.

I'm going to continue to vote against the inclusion of further Iberian wonders. We've got a lot of them, and you could argue for the inclusion of any of hundreds of magnificent buildings across Europe.

All of the buildings mentioned are spectacular, but so are Chartres Cathedral, Malbork Castle, Westminster Abbey, and many, many more.

We've got a lot of wonders and a ton of colonial projects, so there's no shortage of expensive things to build. I'm not totally opposed to adding more stuff, but I worry that we might end up a little overstuffed, if we aren't there already.

In recent discussions the consensus was to add the Tower of London as a National Wonder (replaces Scotland Yard) and the Amsterdam Stock Exchange (replaces Wall Street) as a World Wonder. Others like Westminster Abbey and Buda Castle were suggested too. But, I agree that Iberia is already over-represented in wonders, as is France and Italy. Other areas like Central Europe may not be though. So my vote would be to add the two I mentioned above for now and definitely no more colonies.

In recent discussions the consensus was to add the Tower of London as a National Wonder (replaces Scotland Yard) and the Amsterdam Stock Exchange (replaces Wall Street) as a World Wonder. Others like Westminster Abbey and Buda Castle were suggested too. But, I agree that Iberia is already over-represented in wonders, as is France and Italy. Other areas like Central Europe may not be though. So my vote would be to add the two I mentioned above for now and definitely no more colonies.

Good call. As fun as it was to build all of the projects, we should probably shrink the number of colonies a bit too - there's just too much wealth and production floating around in the late game. In my Genoan game, I was able to take Tangier and build every single colonial project (until I hit the 3rd victory condition, after which I stopped), using just four or five cities (Palermo, Genoa, Milano, Firenze, and Ajacco (? something in Sardinia). It wouldn't be difficult to do the same thing with Burgundy, France, England, or Spain.

I recall someone, on another post, stating that Charles V is a wrong choice for Burgundy. This guy was right, as Charles V was indeed a member of a Valois House, but reigned at France, not at Burgundy. I propose Phillip the Bold as his replacement (just change the name, not the LH)

I recall someone, on another post, stating that Charles V is a wrong choice for Burgundy. This guy was right, as Charles V was indeed a member of a Valois House, but reigned at France, not at Burgundy. I propose Phillip the Bold as his replacement (just change the name, not the LH)

I agree with that. Just changing the name is the easiest solution.:goodjob:

I'll do that. Now I'm an expert in XML modding, it shouldn't be hard.;)

Where can we install the latest version of this game, and what is the latest version?

Where can we install the latest version of this game, and what is the latest version?

Find: RFCEurope Files 1st post. (al usual) Newest version: alpha 6
Instal: program files/faraxis games/civ4/beyond the sword/mods (as usual)

And please don't ask this again.

The newest version is micbic's 6.1 version, somewhere on the last page or the page before that. St. Lucifer has released a new map, which is some posts after that.

Also, merijn has put in the RFCE: Civilopedia thread a new version of XML files with more updated civilopedia ;)

I EXRTREMLY disapprove with Saladin's favorite civic be Theology. This is very wrong in a number of ways. For one, he never prosecuted Jews or Christians for no reason (Though Muslims did have special privileges, like able to serve in the military). Secondly, he was able to negotiate a safe pilgrimage to Jerusalem, effectively ending the Third Crusade. Putting Theology as his favorite civic is in a way completely disregarding almost all of his achievements, including one of the few Muslims honored by medieval Europe.

Also, I think the extra Civ spot can be achieved by simply either making the kingdoms of Scotland or Aragon playable (Or just add a few more by making a larger DDL). I do not like how France is split into two main civs while England and Spain are just one main civ with just a lot of independents around. Both kingdoms were, at their time, powerful. Big want on Scotland, though. Scotland was a very important back in it's day, and resisted many wars by England for unification until the union act of 1707.

I EXRTREMLY disapprove with Saladin's favorite civic be Theology. This is very wrong in a number of ways. For one, he never prosecuted Jews or Christians for no reason (Though Muslims did have special privileges, like able to serve in the military). Secondly, he was able to negotiate a safe pilgrimage to Jerusalem, effectively ending the Third Crusade. Putting Theology as his favorite civic is in a way completely disregarding almost all of his achievements, including one of the few Muslims honored by medieval Europe.

Perhaps you could suggest a different favorite civic. We are not demonizing Saladin - we're increasing the likelihood that the game will play out historically by providing another point of conflict between Arabia and its rival civs.

Also, I think the extra Civ spot can be achieved by simply either making the kingdoms of Scotland or Aragon playable (Or just add a few more by making a larger DDL). I do not like how France is split into two main civs while England and Spain are just one main civ with just a lot of independents around. Both kingdoms were, at their time, powerful. Big want on Scotland, though. Scotland was a very important back in it's day, and resisted many wars by England for unification until the union act of 1707.

Have you played a game all the way through? Notice how it's a bit slow at the end, and crashes to desktop semi-regularly as you scroll from side to side? Adding more civs makes this problem considerably worse.

When proposing additional civs (especially to a mod which has repeatedly said that the civ list is closed), please consider the following criteria:

1. Is there geographic space for the proposed civ? Scotland has 2-3 productive city sites, and never controlled any territory outside of, well, Scotland. Which is small.
There are already 3 civs on the Iberian peninsula, 1 more than France, 1 more than Italy, 2 more than Germany. Adding Aragon would crowd this further.

2. Are there compelling historical reasons to add the proposed civ? Importance is relative. You describe Scotland as 'very important back in it's day', which was...when? How long was the period of 'importance', or relevance? What were the major cultural achievements, buildings, territorial gains that the civ achieved in its period of dominance?

3. Does the addition of the proposed civ balance an intractable problem, or fill a geopolitical void? Right now, the weakest part of the map in terms of both civ numbers and things to do is Russia. There are good arguments to be made for the addition of a second civ such as Novgorod or the Golden Horde, both for geopolitical balance, challenge in gameplay, and historical reasons.

4. Has the proposed civ been proposed and soundly rejected many, many times before? You'd have to read through lots of threads or the project wiki for that information, but let's just say that the world does not lack for proud and angry Scotsmen.

Thanks for your feedback.

Perhaps you could suggest a different favorite civic. We are not demonizing Saladin - we're increasing the likelihood that the game will play out historically by providing another point of conflict between Arabia and its rival civs.

Well technically up until the collapse of the Ottoman Emprie all religions were tolerated so having Theology as a favourite civ does not corrospond to any Arabian Kindom/Empire at that time. And I still feel that RFC Europe STILL does not show enough of the greatness of the Islamic Empires, even though the game does give them a research boost intially I still don't feel it adds up at all, in fact I think there should be colonial projects which Arabia can construct such as the conquest of Central Asia and India.

Besides the points I made above these are a few problems I found while playing:

1. What the heck happend to the Mongol invasion!?!? There should be a little text box that comes up saying that horseman are pouring out of Transoxania (central asia) and entering the Russian steppes burning everything in there wake! ie the Medival II Mongol invasion video ;). It should be the first thing that comes up when you think of "Barbarian invasions" during the medival era. Also another invasion should be the Timurds that should crush the ottomans and arabians in the Middle East.

2. When playing as Arabia, how come is almost impossible to invade Spain when techinically the Umayyad Caliphate conqueared there way up all the way to Tours in France, what should happen is when the Caliphate of Cordoba spawns it should flip all the Arabian cities in the Iberian Peninusla and maybe one in N. Africa, because right not with Al-Andalus coming with pretty much no Arabs even close by is very un historical, (think back to RFC UHV of conquering Spain)

3. When playing as the Turks (which I enjoyed quite a bit:) ) it bothered me to no end that the capital for them was Ankara!? first off Ankara is situated in the north of the country not smack in the middle, not to mention the Ottomans led by Osman set up there first capital in Sogut (think back to RFC again) which is a lot more historically correct since Ankara was NEVER the capital of for the Ottomans, for more information look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osman_I.

4. While looking at the tech tree I noticed it said first to discover this technology will find Orthodox Christianity, which I found strange since there was already two Orthodox countries (Bulgaria and Byzantium), I'm just a bit conused what researching this tech actually does.

5. Out of curoisty are there settler maps for RFC Europe like there are for normal RFC because as playing the Venetians I found it confusing where I should settle my cities and which areas to avoid, so could you guys maybe whip us some of these maps or tell me where I can find them.

6. Something else that kept bothering me was the Civic option picutres which continued to bother me due to the fact that they are still the vanilla civic pictures so merchant republic has the sign of Enviromentalism. A place you guys can look at is Zappara's Rise of Mankind, he has some Medival looking civic pictures which you guys can use.

Overall though I think you guys are f***ing beasts when it comes to modding;). I remember 2 summers ago looking at this forum and not seeing much being done, but now as I look at the work thats been done its really incredible and I really have to hand it to you for only an alpha version this mod already rocks. Keep up the good work the entire RFC fan group is rooting you guys on:)

I won't attempt to answer all your points but here's a few thoughts in response.
As one of those few left from the early days of development (only me and st. lucifer left now) I've been the only person pushing for strong Muslim civs from the start. Its been an uphill struggle to convince people how important they should be from the start of this mod. You and I might appreciate how more advanced than anyone else in Europe they were. But I accept that this a European mod with 20 civs and it has to be balanced so all civs are playable.
If we closely followed an accurate historical model, the Arabs and Cordobans would be so far ahead in science, culture, military and health that no other civ could catch up. That would be more true to history but ruin this mod as a game. I'm sure you realize that. I'm not happy yet with the balance we have achieved, particularly with the Cordobans who have so badly nerfed by a poor tech rate and foriegn instability that they bear no resemblance to the highly advanced civilisation they were in the 9thC-11thC.
And the Cordoban start is so weak they never really have a chance to conquer Iberia before the Spanish spawn. They should flip Valencia, Cadiz and Toledo and at least 2 cities in Morocco at the start and have a few troops in Iberia. I've suggested that but nobody agrees with me (except you maybe?).
The Arabs too have been crippled by being Orthodox from the start even though they found Islam, a bit of historical nonsense I hope one of our modders can sort out very soon. They also should flip Alexandria with an army of 4-5 Ghazi cavalry in order to give them a head start in conquering North Africa. But again, nobody else will agree with me on that, I'm afraid.

As to your other points:
There are settler and UHV maps in the Reference folder of RFC Europe.
The tech which allows you to found Orthodoxy when its already founded at the start is a bug.
I'm not sure what you mean about the barbs. We've already got Mongol and Seljuk invasions. And there should be a separate Mongol invasion of the Middle East about 50 years after the Ottomans spawn. Should there be more?
I totally agree about Ankara. It should be Sogut.
The buttons and graphics for the civics should be improved. Agreed.

There are settler and UHV maps in the Reference folder of RFC Europe.


The Turk is right, they have been left out of this version.

The Turk is right, they have been left out of this version.

Yeah, I forgot to include the ones appropriate for the new map. Sorry.

To the Turk:

1. The Mongol invasion is a very powerful invasion of Keshiks. Play Kiev and enjoy the Horde. I am against making the Mongols playable since they will instantly lose their sinister power.

2. Arabia from the game is not supposed to conquer Spain. Cordoba represents the Arabs in Spain.

3. You are right about the capital, we should reconsider the starting location + the city name map.

4. The first to discover "Classical Knowledge" founds Orthodoxy, the Byzantines start with classical knowledge from turn 1 and also Orthodoxy is pre-founded at the beginning of the game. There is no conflict/bug.

5. Reference folder is a bit out of date and if it has been excluded from the current version, you should look for it in the older Alphas.

6. In general we do need more art, however, I believe, right now, we should be more concerned with balance.

One more point, I believe the balance in power/culture in the west should go for the Cordobans, however, I don't see the Arabs being overwhelmingly more powerful in culture than Byzantium and Bulgaria and they certainly were not more powerful in military (call it a three way tie). The Ottoman invasion has not been balanced yet. (Orthodox Arabia should be fixed by a forest tile next to Antioch, this is a "bug")

To the Turk:

1. The Mongol invasion is a very powerful invasion of Keshiks. Play Kiev and enjoy the Horde. I am against making the Mongols playable since they will instantly lose their sinister power.

2. Arabia from the game is not supposed to conquer Spain. Cordoba represents the Arabs in Spain.

3. You are right about the capital, we should reconsider the starting location + the city name map.

4. The first to discover "Classical Knowledge" founds Orthodoxy, the Byzantines start with classical knowledge from turn 1 and also Orthodoxy is pre-founded at the beginning of the game. There is no conflict/bug.

5. Reference folder is a bit out of date and if it has been excluded from the current version, you should look for it in the older Alphas.

6. In general we do need more art, however, I believe, right now, we should be more concerned with balance.

One more point, I believe the balance in power/culture in the west should go for the Cordobans, however, I don't see the Arabs being overwhelmingly more powerful in culture than Byzantium and Bulgaria and they certainly were not more powerful in military (call it a three way tie). The Ottoman invasion has not been balanced yet. (Orthodox Arabia should be fixed by a forest tile next to Antioch, this is a "bug")

1. Then will you look at Cordoba's start again please, esp. the tech rate, stability and starting units.
This is supposed to be an invasion not "immigration". (I've offered some suggestions in the previous post).
In strengthing Spain so much we've nerfed Cordoba quite a lot IMO.
2. That also could be solved by starting the horse archers further away from Byzantine cities (as I suggested in the other thread).

If I remember right, the reason that we went with Ankara over Sogut was geographical spacing. Sogut is in Marmara - it's pretty close (maybe 1-2 tiles east of) the current location of Nicaea. Spawn the Ottomans there, and they flip all of Anatolia, rather than having to work for half of it. The only other large open space in Anatolia is the area east of Caesaraea/Kayseri, which is much less central and less likely to support a successful Turkish invasion of Constantinople (which is sort of the goal.)

Jessiecat, I'm with you as far as the Cordobans needing a legitimate base in N. Africa, but against flipping more cities. I see Cordoban Toledo more often than Spanish Toledo in the games that I've played (in the event that it isn't destroyed completely), as it's often a barbarian city when they spawn. Perhaps the foreign stability issue does need to be re-examined, as Cordoba is one of the more common civs to collapse, but I don't think it's possible to give them both their historical peak levels of power and technology and achieve a playable balance in Iberia. What I'd like to see is a stable Muslim state in Spain, capable of supporting a few large cities and building some wonders, posing a serious threat to Spain (ideally about a 30/30/20 split between Cordoba wins out, Spain wins out, and coexistence), and taking indy Toulouse and Marseilles out every few games. Ideally, that state would also have a strong enough base in Morocco that it could survive losing cities in Iberia to a Reconquista, and continue on, but the stability issues would likely make that impossible.


Still, while Cordoba as it currently stands is not the strongest state in the world, it's playable and challenging. Contrast that with the Byzantines as the human player (nearly impossible due to tech/production modifiers), or Arabia (too easy), and it's a world of difference.

If I remember right, the reason that we went with Ankara over Sogut was geographical spacing. Sogut is in Marmara - it's pretty close (maybe 1-2 tiles east of) the current location of Nicaea. Spawn the Ottomans there, and they flip all of Anatolia, rather than having to work for half of it. The only other large open space in Anatolia is the area east of Caesaraea/Kayseri, which is much less central and less likely to support a successful Turkish invasion of Constantinople (which is sort of the goal.)

Jessiecat, I'm with you as far as the Cordobans needing a legitimate base in N. Africa, but against flipping more cities. I see Cordoban Toledo more often than Spanish Toledo in the games that I've played (in the event that it isn't destroyed completely), as it's often a barbarian city when they spawn. Perhaps the foreign stability issue does need to be re-examined, as Cordoba is one of the more common civs to collapse, but I don't think it's possible to give them both their historical peak levels of power and technology and achieve a playable balance in Iberia. What I'd like to see is a stable Muslim state in Spain, capable of supporting a few large cities and building some wonders, posing a serious threat to Spain (ideally about a 30/30/20 split between Cordoba wins out, Spain wins out, and coexistence), and taking indy Toulouse and Marseilles out every few games. Ideally, that state would also have a strong enough base in Morocco that it could survive losing cities in Iberia to a Reconquista, and continue on, but the stability issues would likely make that impossible.


Still, while Cordoba as it currently stands is not the strongest state in the world, it's playable and challenging. Contrast that with the Byzantines as the human player (nearly impossible due to tech/production modifiers), or Arabia (too easy), and it's a world of difference.

We are not fundamentally disagreeing here but my point is that in the present setup Cordoba has little or no chance to fulfill its UHV requirements by 1300. If you're crippled by poor production in Cordoba while you're concentrating on food in order to get the population requirement by 1000AD you can't at same time build your Noria/Smokehouse/House of Wisdom/Madrassa/etc. and research towards Philosophy and Patronage and defend against attacks from Spain, all at the same time. There's only so much one city can do. Forget about the other cities. They're crap by comparison.

Of course you can play the conquerers game to eliminate Spain and later Portugal if you spam military units. That's easy but where does that leave you? A united Iberia and a hopelessly backward empire with a lousy economy and far behind in technology. So you end up as one of the mod's also-rans. The fundamental problem with Cordoba is that they are far too weak at the start. These are the people who conquered nearly all of Iberia in 4 years and forged the most learned, advanced and sophisticated society in the world by 900AD. One in which just the number of libaries in Cordoba alone exceeded the total number of all books in the whole of Europe. Yet we treat them as unstable doormats just waiting to be absorbed by an inferior new pretender in 912AD. Don't you realize how ridiculously easy and how boring it is to play as Spain now?

Should they get another settler (making it 4), tweak them on tech (quicker) or else?

Should they get another settler (making it 4), tweak them on tech (quicker) or else?

They only get two now. I'd settle for flipping Toledo, better tech rate and maybe a couple of Berber cavalry in Cordoba on spawn. And a Muslim Arabia of course.

They get 2 Settlers+Tangiers+Valencia already. 5 cities? Overpowered IMO.
And to make the advert, thanks to Sourceforge, you can see your changes in the next version with the speed of light :D

They get 2 Settlers+Tangiers+Valencia already. 5 cities? Overpowered IMO.
And to make the advert, thanks to Sourceforge, you can see your changes in the next version with the speed of light :D

They should be overpowered from the start. By the time that Spain spawns they will decline very fast. As they did in history.

They should be overpowered from the start. By the time that Spain spawns they will decline very fast. As they did in history.

I like the progress thats coming out for the under powered Muslim countries who for centuries ruled the known world in every aspect from philosophy to military. And I really like jessiecat's proposition for a very powerful Cordoba.

By the way I was wondering if you could add a type of "colonial" project for the Arabs but instead call it a Trade Mission with the Indian Ocean. I don't know if any of you have played the Broken Crescent mod for Medieval 2 but thats a good example where you construct a building that expands your trade.

We are not fundamentally disagreeing here but my point is that in the present setup Cordoba has little or no chance to fulfill its UHV requirements by 1300. If you're crippled by poor production in Cordoba while you're concentrating on food in order to get the population requirement by 1000AD you can't at same time build your Noria/Smokehouse/House of Wisdom/Madrassa/etc. and research towards Philosophy and Patronage and defend against attacks from Spain, all at the same time. There's only so much one city can do. Forget about the other cities. They're crap by comparison.

Of course you can play the conquerers game to eliminate Spain and later Portugal if you spam military units. That's easy but where does that leave you? A united Iberia and a hopelessly backward empire with a lousy economy and far behind in technology. So you end up as one of the mod's also-rans. The fundamental problem with Cordoba is that they are far too weak at the start. These are the people who conquered nearly all of Iberia in 4 years and forged the most learned, advanced and sophisticated society in the world by 900AD. One in which just the number of libaries in Cordoba alone exceeded the total number of all books in the whole of Europe. Yet we treat them as unstable doormats just waiting to be absorbed by an inferior new pretender in 912AD. Don't you realize how ridiculously easy and how boring it is to play as Spain now?

I have/had no influence on the tech rate decision, but I think that's a reasonable answer to the issue, as might be flipping another city in Morocco.

I could also tweak the terrain to make fewer choices between food and production necessary. You're right that the other cities are weak - it's unfortunate that the spacing of cities in southern Iberia involves so much overlap and non-ideal sites.

Let's try this for a partial fix: tell me the coordinates (or directions from Cordoba - i.e. 3W1SW) of the cities you'd like to see them found regularly, and I'll tweak the resource allocation and terrain to make them better cities. The impossibility of irrigation (which may be partially fixed by the requisite wonder, but that's another hoop to jump through) makes that area less productive than it probably should be. Again, I've been planning to redo Morocco for a while now, so I'll be looking at that area anyway - the addition of even a handful of grassland tiles down there will make a big difference, as will shifting a few resources.

I won't attempt to answer all your points but here's a few thoughts in response.
As one of those few left from the early days of development (only me and st. lucifer left now) I've been the only person pushing for strong Muslim civs from the start. Its been an uphill struggle to convince people how important they should be from the start of this mod. You and I might appreciate how more advanced than anyone else in Europe they were. But I accept that this a European mod with 20 civs and it has to be balanced so all civs are playable.
If we closely followed an accurate historical model, the Arabs and Cordobans would be so far ahead in science, culture, military and health that no other civ could catch up. That would be more true to history but ruin this mod as a game. I'm sure you realize that. I'm not happy yet with the balance we have achieved, particularly with the Cordobans who have so badly nerfed by a poor tech rate and foriegn instability that they bear no resemblance to the highly advanced civilisation they were in the 9thC-11thC.
And the Cordoban start is so weak they never really have a chance to conquer Iberia before the Spanish spawn. They should flip Valencia, Cadiz and Toledo and at least 2 cities in Morocco at the start and have a few troops in Iberia. I've suggested that but nobody agrees with me (except you maybe?).
The Arabs too have been crippled by being Orthodox from the start even though they found Islam, a bit of historical nonsense I hope one of our modders can sort out very soon. They also should flip Alexandria with an army of 4-5 Ghazi cavalry in order to give them a head start in conquering North Africa. But again, nobody else will agree with me on that, I'm afraid.

As to your other points:
There are settler and UHV maps in the Reference folder of RFC Europe.
The tech which allows you to found Orthodoxy when its already founded at the start is a bug.
I'm not sure what you mean about the barbs. We've already got Mongol and Seljuk invasions. And there should be a separate Mongol invasion of the Middle East about 50 years after the Ottomans spawn. Should there be more?
I totally agree about Ankara. It should be Sogut.
The buttons and graphics for the civics should be improved. Agreed.


The Arabs and Cordobans could be balanced despite being very strong compared to the Christian powers (and Turks) if their UHVs were made far more difficult. For example, Arabia's UHV might be:

~Control 20 cities and Constantinople in 1300 AD
~Spread Islam to 40%
~Be the first to finish the tech tree

Now, those are all big challenges, made even more so by the fact that the first criterion makes the third criterion significantly more difficult.

Similarly, Cordoba:

~Make Cordoba the largest city in 1000 AD
~Control the Iberian peninsula by conquest or vassalage by 1500 AD
~Be the happiest and healthiest civilization in 1500 AD (by the Demographics screen)

The first and second UHVs again work against the third UHV, yet all three (or at least the first and third) are difficult. You could even change the second UHV to something about population or technology (or to the current second UHV) since controlling all of Iberia was never really a focus for the Cordoban leadership.

That would allow Cordoba and Arabia to have much better stability and strong tech rates and yet not run away with the game. (It would also require the AI to be less willing to trade techs with the Christians so as to prevent the overall tech rate form speeding up too much.)

I'm sorry but I don't really like Verily's idea, its too unhistorical, due to the fact that the Arabs never finished the tech tree first nor did they control any part of Anatolia your getting confused with the Seljuk Turks.

I'm sorry but I don't really like Verily's idea, its too unhistorical, due to the fact that the Arabs never finished the tech tree first nor did they control any part of Anatolia your getting confused with the Seljuk Turks.

I agree with you on that, as both the Arabs and the Cordobans should be technically advanced up to about 1300 but start falling behind after that. And if you read my reply you'll realize that the Arabs can't have everything their own way historically. As has been pointed out, Cordoba represents the Muslim conquests in the west. The problem is that we don't show them with any presence in North Africa other than Tanjah. They invaded Iberia in 711 and conquered it in a couple of years. We just settle them in Andalusia without any army to conquer with. That's just wrong.

I thought the Arabs made it all the way to Constantinople, but failed to conquer it? If so then the UHV could be "control most cities in Anatolia in 1300".
And the 4rd UHV is ok since there's supposed to be 1 ahistorical UHV that's maybe also really hard.

I have/had no influence on the tech rate decision, but I think that's a reasonable answer to the issue, as might be flipping another city in Morocco.

I could also tweak the terrain to make fewer choices between food and production necessary. You're right that the other cities are weak - it's unfortunate that the spacing of cities in southern Iberia involves so much overlap and non-ideal sites.

Let's try this for a partial fix: tell me the coordinates (or directions from Cordoba - i.e. 3W1SW) of the cities you'd like to see them found regularly, and I'll tweak the resource allocation and terrain to make them better cities. The impossibility of irrigation (which may be partially fixed by the requisite wonder, but that's another hoop to jump through) makes that area less productive than it probably should be. Again, I've been planning to redo Morocco for a while now, so I'll be looking at that area anyway - the addition of even a handful of grassland tiles down there will make a big difference, as will shifting a few resources.

I think increasing their tech rate in the early game and flipping a 2nd. city in North Africa ( Tlemcen or Oran?) would help a lot esp. if Arabia is always Islamic. Tweaking their stability, esp. in the foriegn relations would help too.
I don't think resources in Andalusia need to alter very much now that Valencia's position is greatly improved. Though more stone and an extra iron would be useful. And the plains SE of Toledo have no resources at all. One or two grains and stone would be useful. Cuenca (1 tile S of the pigs) could be a very good city if it had more food to grow. Morocco is not bad though the coast to the east (Oran area) before Algiers needs some food for growth. That's about it I think.

I quite agree with the Turk's idea of 1/2 Arab colonial projects (Central Asia, Central Africa), as well as the ''control x cities and Constantinople by y AD''. A nice idea would be 'Do not lose any cities due to instability or crusading till 1500 AD' .

I am against Arabian colonies, those are no different than Siberia and we do not include Siberia. The Islamic Faith Power gives the Arabs growth and cheaper units, to represent the fast territories they had outside Europe.

The Arabs besieged Constantinople, but they did not "control" Anatolia, their invasion in that area was a "raid", i.e. come and they leave as they were destroyed. However, I do believe that a UHV that requires the Arabs to hit the Byzantines is appropriate (either by a number of cities or capture Constantinople).

I don't see the Arabs entering the Industrial age, finish the tech tree is far more appropriate for someone like England.

Happiest and Healthiest will have to be carefully defined. Technically the healthiest and happiest cities are the ones with very little population.

Biggest population/unhealthness and population/unhappiness ratios? (codable?)

So the raid was like their raid of Rome and other parts of southern Italy? If so the condition could be changed to "raze X number of Byzantine cities".

Biggest population/unhealthness and population/unhappiness ratios? (codable?)

Codable yes, but it is not practical. Just don't build Forge/Guild Houses population/unhealthness would be maximized at 1. There are more sources of unhappiness, but in any way it doesn't mean "build more temples", but rather "do now allow foreign religion/culture/war wariness.

Sorry for the long absence again, I also agree that both Islamic civs should be stronger, I don't know who it is that ISN'T pushing for stronger Arabia and Cordoba. I think a good solution for Cordoba is another powerhouse city so that Cordoba won't stand alone. This idea might have been shot down before, but maybe Seville could be that other strong city. It was probably the next most important city in Al-Andalus after Cordoba, right? What if we could have it from the spawn as Hispala, a relatively strong city (We'd improve it's resource situation justa tad) , and then make it flip to Cordoba.

For Arabia I have a completely different idea. I've said this before but it wasn't discussed much. What if we extend the map East a little so that Arabia can have some more cities to generate troops with? This is probably too far East to stretch it, but a city like Baghdad would be a big help, no? With this extension obviously there will be more of Russia too, leaving them with more room to expand and more locations for their historic cites, like Kazan or Caricyn (Volgograd). The Arabic start would be changed somewhat, but not that much, considering that there isn't much else between Damascus and Baghdad. In fact there isn't much at all in that area of latitude except for Baghdad and a few cities in Russia, so it wouldn't slow the game much.

Both Islamic civs should probably get another settler or two also, and Arabia should get a bigger army.

I think increasing their tech rate in the early game and flipping a 2nd. city in North Africa ( Tlemcen or Oran?) would help a lot esp. if Arabia is always Islamic. Tweaking their stability, esp. in the foriegn relations would help too.
I don't think resources in Andalusia need to alter very much now that Valencia's position is greatly improved. Though more stone and an extra iron would be useful. And the plains SE of Toledo have no resources at all. One or two grains and stone would be useful. Cuenca (1 tile S of the pigs) could be a very good city if it had more food to grow. Morocco is not bad though the coast to the east (Oran area) before Algiers needs some food for growth. That's about it I think.

What do you think of these sugggestion then, MV? Valencia could be the 2nd. powerhouse city.
And do you agree that Spain has become very strong and too easy to play as well? Go on, admit it?:lol:

Is Seville not the second most important city in all of Spain? Has it not been in most of Spain's history?? Then where is iton our map??? This is why I'm reluctant to go with Valencia.

and not because of Spain's own strength and amazingness however, but because of Cordoba's current patheticness. We will now act accordingly. :)

Well, thats why the Cordobans now flip Toledo (dont believe? look sourceforge!)

Well, thats why the Cordobans now flip Toledo (dont believe? look sourceforge!)

They don't flip Toledo. Anyway, what's sourceforge?:confused:

Sorry for the long absence again, I also agree that both Islamic civs should be stronger, I don't know who it is that ISN'T pushing for stronger Arabia and Cordoba. I think a good solution for Cordoba is another powerhouse city so that Cordoba won't stand alone. This idea might have been shot down before, but maybe Seville could be that other strong city. It was probably the next most important city in Al-Andalus after Cordoba, right? What if we could have it from the spawn as Hispala, a relatively strong city (We'd improve it's resource situation justa tad) , and then make it flip to Cordoba.

For Arabia I have a completely different idea. I've said this before but it wasn't discussed much. What if we extend the map East a little so that Arabia can have some more cities to generate troops with? This is probably too far East to stretch it, but a city like Baghdad would be a big help, no? With this extension obviously there will be more of Russia too, leaving them with more room to expand and more locations for their historic cites, like Kazan or Caricyn (Volgograd). The Arabic start would be changed somewhat, but not that much, considering that there isn't much else between Damascus and Baghdad. In fact there isn't much at all in that area of latitude except for Baghdad and a few cities in Russia, so it wouldn't slow the game much.

Both Islamic civs should probably get another settler or two also, and Arabia should get a bigger army.

Originally, the map stretched further east, including the Caucasus and parts of Mesopotamia. We made the decision at the beginning of the project to focus on Europe and therefore eliminate those regions - in order to do so, I transposed the whole thing, one square at a time, ten rows west. It was an incredibly tedious job, which took maybe 12-15 hours of dedicated time to do.

I am not doing that again. Even if I were willing, someone would have to go back through and redo every single scripted even that involves a set of coordinates, and redo every single settler map and city name map.

If I remember right (we looked into this approach at the time), there's no way to simply add blank columns to the end of an existing map - so you're stuck with this one, unless you'd like to redo the whole thing from scratch. Sorry.


I'm not in favor of strengthening Arabia. In the hands of the human player, they're unstoppable - more than one of us has won a game as Arabia where we've nearly completed the tech tree and built every single wonder and colony before the last UHV trigger. Going with a domination victory isn't much more difficult.

In the hands of the AI, it's a slightly different story, but if we can solve the Orthodoxy issue, they'll be in better shape.


I am in favor of strengthening Cordoba, and tweaking the terrain around Sevilla to make a second powerful city possible seems to me like a simple and logical way of doing that. I'm also fine with Jessiecat's suggestion of strengthening Valencia - one problem of the good Cordoban city sites is that most of the historically important ones were not-quite-coastal. Having a strong port city is essential, and Tangier as it currently stands (although I'm going to improve it significantly) doesn't cut it.

I'd rather add a second city in Morocco (I'd vote for Tlemcen over Oran) than have them flip Toledo.

I agree with you, st. lucifer. And I also agree that Sevilla should be built. But the only way I'd opt for Sevilla over Cadiz was if we gave it access to the sea. It was the major port until the Gaudalquivir silted up in the 15thC. That's why Cadiz was built. So maybe an estuary tile there might do the job. Could you try that and then everybody's satisfied?
Something like this though you can do it better, I'm sure.

I agree with you, st. lucifer. And I also agree that Sevilla should be built. But the only way I'd opt for Sevilla over Cadiz was if we gave it access to the sea. It was the major port until the Gaudalquivir silted up in the 15thC. That's why Cadiz was built. So maybe an estuary tile there might do the job. Could you try that and then everybody's satisfied?
Something like this though you can do it better, I'm sure.

Could we change the settler map so that either location is Sevilla rather than Cadiz? I can shift things over, but it's not going to look pretty, and there's still not a whole lot of space between Sevilla and Cordoba. I might be able to add another tile to the west and keep it in proportion - let me play around with it and see what i can do.

Another possibility is starting Cordoba one tile further east, which is a considerably better city site than the current one. Go with that, make Sevilla the coastal tile, and change some resources to make both better city sites, and we've got a considerably better starting position.

I'm sorry but I don't really like Verily's idea, its too unhistorical, due to the fact that the Arabs never finished the tech tree first nor did they control any part of Anatolia your getting confused with the Seljuk Turks.

UHVs are not about what a civilization did, but rather about what a civilization tried to do (and in some cases, but not all, succeeded--think of the German UHVs in base RFC, only one third of one of which [control Scandinavia by 1940] is historical).

The Arabs did indeed attack Constantinople many times, even breaching the walls before being turned back. It would not have taken much of a twist of history for Constantinople to fall to the Arabs in the 700s. The UHV is highly appropriate.

"Finish the tech tree" was to represent continued Arab technological dominance. Obviously they didn't manage this, but again it would be a goal of the Arabs to maintain their technological superiority well past when they actually did. I'm less wedded to this idea.

Also, st. lucifer, Cordoba was originally one tile east. It was moved because some people whined that there wasn't enough room for Granada. (There still really isn't, and there never will be, but some people are never satisfied.) I would support moving it back.

Perhaps for happiest/healthiest there could also be a population requirement (i.e., have 10 million people* and be the happiest and healthiest civilization in 1500).

*Arbitrary number, would have to look into what is realistic by the demographics screen.

I'd like to keep city positions the same in Iberia. Unless somebody invents a way to have caravels and such sail up rivers in the mod, then Seville should stay on that hill next to the copper. Also moving Seville would completely eliminate the need for Cadiz, which I intend to continue to build. This probably doesn't need to be mentioned, but that screenshot of coast under the Guadalquivir was quite unattractive, don't you all agree? IMO Cordoba doesn't need a particularly powerful coastal city, they weren't really all that spectacular naval-ly, were they?? If we do need a big coastal city then give the region enough resources to have a big Sevilla AND Cadiz.

Of course the ideal solution is a way to allow smaller ships (galley types, caravels, carracks) the ability to traverse the river tile and get to Seville, while galleons, frigates and the like will have to come from Cadiz, as historical. That's impossible, right?

We'd need a new kind of tile, like a "large river" kind of thing, it would be able to go into oceans, as well as merge with normal rivers, it should give cities water access, but a different kind, allowing for different water buildings (it wouldn't make much sense to build a lighthouse in Seville). It could be crossed by small ships, and land units but ONLY with a road going across. Also the art for it would require that the actual stream of water go through the middle of the tile, and not the border so that the ships would actually look like they were sailing through. This kind of tile would be used for the first part of the Guadalquivir, the Thames, the Nile, and more. Also impossible, of course, but you know, just in case some really amazing modders/artists were listening...

Talking about Cordoba, you guys should really think of making it bigger and more powerful, by maybe just adding more resources around it and giving it room, because for a large chunk of time Cordoba was the biggest and influential city in the Middle East and in Europe.

I'd like to keep city positions the same in Iberia. Unless somebody invents a way to have caravels and such sail up rivers in the mod, then Seville should stay on that hill next to the copper. Also moving Seville would completely eliminate the need for Cadiz, which I intend to continue to build. This probably doesn't need to be mentioned, but that screenshot of coast under the Guadalquivir was quite unattractive, don't you all agree? IMO Cordoba doesn't need a particularly powerful coastal city, they weren't really all that spectacular naval-ly, were they?? If we do need a big coastal city then give the region enough resources to have a big Sevilla AND Cadiz.

Of course the ideal solution is a way to allow smaller ships (galley types, caravels, carracks) the ability to traverse the river tile and get to Seville, while galleons, frigates and the like will have to come from Cadiz, as historical. That's impossible, right?

We'd need a new kind of tile, like a "large river" kind of thing, it would be able to go into oceans, as well as merge with normal rivers, it should give cities water access, but a different kind, allowing for different water buildings (it wouldn't make much sense to build a lighthouse in Seville). It could be crossed by small ships, and land units but ONLY with a road going across. Also the art for it would require that the actual stream of water go through the middle of the tile, and not the border so that the ships would actually look like they were sailing through. This kind of tile would be used for the first part of the Guadalquivir, the Thames, the Nile, and more. Also impossible, of course, but you know, just in case some really amazing modders/artists were listening...

As a veteran mapmaker from Civ II onward, I have often dreamed of such a tile... but I don't think it's going to happen. A damn shame, as it would be more accurate than anything we can throw out there right now, and it would probably look better, as well... It's too bad the river graphics are so tough to work with, as syncing such a tile up with a river would present its own challenge.


There actually are lighthouses on some large rivers - the Hudson comes to mind. And we added the wharf as a way to incorporate river commerce into the grand scheme of water-based trade... so we're at least moving in the right direction.

I still think that given the limitations we're working with, eliminating the newer Cadiz in favor of the more historical Sevilla is the way to go. Cordoba may not have to be a naval power, but they controlled the Barbary Coast and Straits of Gibraltar - they weren't exactly landlocked. Maybe Valencia is all the port that they need, but Sevilla is probably the single most important city of this time period that will rarely/never be built by either the human player or AI (other candidates: Orleans, Verona, Pisa, Sogut, Berlin, Acre, Madrid).


I'm with Verily - move Cordoba back 1E, and make room for a better, coastal Sevilla.

They don't flip Toledo. Anyway, what's sourceforge?:confused:


Look at the Files threat. Page 24 in the middle somewere.

I still think that given the limitations we're working with, eliminating the newer Cadiz in favor of the more historical Sevilla is the way to go. Cordoba may not have to be a naval power, but they controlled the Barbary Coast and Straits of Gibraltar - they weren't exactly landlocked. Maybe Valencia is all the port that they need, but Sevilla is probably the single most important city of this time period that will rarely/never be built by either the human player or AI (other candidates: Orleans, Verona, Pisa, Sogut, Berlin, Acre, Madrid).

I'm with Verily - move Cordoba back 1E, and make room for a better, coastal Sevilla.

I think there's a general consensus on that solution. (Apart from Michael who is welcome to build wherever he feels like when he's playing as Spain.:D). All we have to do is move the Cordoba start 1 tile East and change one tile on the CityName map to make Seville appear on the coast. As I've done on the screenshot below. A much more balanced start with lots of room for Malaga and Alicante (or Cartagena) on the south coast. I like it.

Sourceforge: That hosting site we were talking about. In the latest version posted, Cordoba is much stronger and it flips Toledo.
I am okay, also, with making Sevilla appear on coast, though it might have been better if added as an indy at non-coast.

Sourceforge: That hosting site we were talking about. In the latest version posted, Cordoba is much stronger and it flips Toledo.
I am okay, also, with making Sevilla appear on coast, though it might have been better if added as an indy at non-coast.

I haven't loaded sourceforge yet. Is there a newer version than Alpha 7 posted there?:confused:

Basically, there is no new version, but 'subversions': You make your revision at the files you want, and upload them there, and thus the older Alpha is being constantly updated (another nice thing with it is that when you download the newer subversion, you dont get 140 MB of files, SVN just replaces the revised files).

In case you have the SVN Tortoise, it is enough to download and update it.

Another scenario with Sevilla is giving it a high value in the AI Settler map. I dont believe, though, that we should be deterministic and say that 'Sevilla MUST be built in every game'. ;)

I am okay, also, with making Sevilla appear on coast, though it might have been better if added as an indy at non-coast.

I'd rather have it on the coast, because I absolutely hate independent cities placed on suboptimal locations, since I don't like razing and rebuilding cities.

EDIT: I also agree about giving some tiles a higher settler value. Being the perfectionist I am in these things, I don't like it when I discover that the civ I'd like to conquer has built it's cities in the worst locations possible. I even reload a Japanese start frequently, only because China places it's cities so terrible sometimes. Therefore, I would like to have higher values for "good" city tiles and lower values for "bad" city tiles. It would improve the AI anyway.

Basically, there is no new version, but 'subversions': You make your revision at the files you want, and upload them there, and thus the older Alpha is being constantly updated (another nice thing with it is that when you download the newer subversion, you dont get 140 MB of files, SVN just replaces the revised files).

In case you have the SVN Tortoise, it is enough to download and update it.

Another scenario with Sevilla is giving it a high value in the AI Settler map. I dont believe, though, that we should be deterministic and say that 'Sevilla MUST be built in every game'. ;)

I see. I think I'll just post files here and wait for the official version, if that's OK. I'm just an old Luddite and the only "subversions" I get involved with are political.:D

I oppose coastal Seville, but if it means Cordoba will build my beloved Sevilla, then I guess it's a necessary evil. I do think I have a better idea for the placement though.

That grass tile that Ishbilliah is currently on in the screenshot, could be changed to coast, move the city 1 tile NE to it's actual location on the hill, and make the river flow under that hill, into the newly created coastal tile. This way Seville isn't actually on the coast, but has access to the rather fat mouth of the Guadalquivir. In fact, this actually looks more accurate. Give that some thought. :)

EDIT: After looking at it some more, it's perfect IMO. Cadiz can still be built in this situation as well, and given that Cadiz in real life is on a narrow spit of land stretching into the sea, this plan makes it look more like the real thing.

EDIT: The Atlantic Access would be on the tile NW of Cadiz, available to both Seville and Cadiz! :D

I oppose coastal Seville, but if it means Cordoba will build my beloved Sevilla, then I guess it's a necessary evil. I do think I have a better idea for the placement though.

That grass tile that Ishbilliah is currently on in the screenshot, could be changed to coast, move the city 1 tile NE to it's actual location on the hill, and make the river flow under that hill, into the newly created coastal tile. This way Seville isn't actually on the coast, but has access to the rather fat mouth of the Guadalquivir. In fact, this actually looks more accurate. Give that some thought. :)

EDIT: After looking at it some more, it's perfect IMO. Cadiz can still be built in this situation as well, and given that Cadiz in real life is on a narrow spit of land stretching into the sea, this plan makes it look more like the real thing.

EDIT: The Atlantic Access would be on the tile NW of Cadiz, available to both Seville and Cadiz! :D

Seville is about 120 k SW of Cordoba, not due West. Therefore it should be on the tile S of the hill, not on it.

You're forgetting about the tilt. I think this is correct.

You're forgetting about the tilt. I think this is correct.

There is no tilt. Check any other map compared to ours. Like this one. Its SW not West. You're wrong, I'm afraid.

Yes, in the map it's SW. But look at the angles of the coast of the Bay of Biscay in our map and yours and then tell me there's no tilt.

Yes, in the map it's SW. But look at the angles of the coast of the Bay of Biscay in our map and yours and then tell me there's no tilt.

Yes, there's a tilt. An imperfect solution to a problem of perspective - I believe I had it flat in the first incarnation and someone objected to it. It doesn't really matter at this point - I could redo Iberia to flatten it, but would prefer not to in part because it would require redoing settler and war maps as well.

It's not a perfect solution, but what about making any city founded S of the river mouth Cadiz and N of the river mouth Sevilla?

I don't think it's the city name map that's the problem, but the location of the tile that will be favored by the AI, which I think should be that hill.

The tilt is quite evident for Iberia, and if you ask me, a bit distracting for some cities' positions. Always was.

We already moved Cordoba 1 W. It's a lot of work to change the map now.

I think it's better to keep it that way.

Seville shouldn't really have coastal access. Just to point it out, some people from Cadiz and Huelva would find it offensive. :crazyeye:

The tilt is quite evident for Iberia, and if you ask me, a bit distracting for some cities' positions. Always was.

We already moved Cordoba 1 W. It's a lot of work to change the map now.

I think it's better to keep it that way.

Seville shouldn't really have coastal access. Just to point it out, some people from Cadiz and Huelva would find it offensive. :crazyeye:

I'm going to play around with making an un-tilted version of Iberia, and see if that helps any. I realize that this will make a lot of follow-up changes necessary, and if people are against using the flattened version, that's fine, but as you pointed out, the shift is noticeable and distracting. Let me see what I can do, and if people like it, we'll make the switch.

I'm going to play around with making an un-tilted version of Iberia, and see if that helps any. I realize that this will make a lot of follow-up changes necessary, and if people are against using the flattened version, that's fine, but as you pointed out, the shift is noticeable and distracting. Let me see what I can do, and if people like it, we'll make the switch.

Perhaps you could explain for me how our Iberia is tilted as opposed to any other map version. Tilted compared to what? Someone show me the correct version. To me it is roughly the same as the map I posted. And if Iberia is so badly tilted what about the rest of the map?:confused:

Perhaps you could explain for me how our Iberia is tilted as opposed to any other map version. Tilted compared to what? Someone show me the correct version. To me it is roughly the same as the map I posted. And if Iberia is so badly tilted what about the rest of the map?:confused:


Ok, the map that I worked from when initially creating the map for the mod used a projection which led to a curve on the outside edges. Look at Africa - there's a 30-degree tilt from west to east. Iberia has the same issue, at a slightly lower percentage - on most world maps, Iberia is set at a roughly 90-degree angle from France. On my map, it's more like 75-80 degrees, which isn't really a problem - but if we're having this debate about city placement now, it might be worth looking at the map itself. I'm going to see what it looks like if I try to remove the tilt. I'll have to drop Morocco a little, and it'll probably end up adding a few tiles to the peninsula as a whole, but it might look better.


If the changes necessitated by this shift require too much backfilling, we'll probably go with the original map.

Yes, the tilt is quite obvious, especially when you look at it's relationship with France. Besides the tilt, I think that the Iberia map should be a bit drier than it is right now, as in less green tiles so far South, and definitely less forests, I'll see if I can help when you come up with a rough outline of the shape of the new Iberia. We've done so much editing from the original it might be good to start a new one from scratch.

The problem is the same as some time before. I already proposed changing cities' locations, and desisted. It's a HUGE deal of rework on the settlermaps, for Spain, Cordoba, Portugal, Arabia and France, at least.

Being from Andalusia, cities there just look weird, but I've coped to live with it. :lol:

And not just the cities, rivers also.

Look jessiecat, you see no tilt, but in most maps, Portuguese coast is a moreless exact vertical line, for example. That's not the case here.

Yes, the tilt is quite obvious, especially when you look at it's relationship with France. Besides the tilt, I think that the Iberia map should be a bit drier than it is right now, as in less green tiles so far South, and definitely less forests, I'll see if I can help when you come up with a rough outline of the shape of the new Iberia. We've done so much editing from the original it might be good to start a new one from scratch.

I disagree. Surely Spain is drier now, but it's been a long process of desertification, accelerated in the past century.

Remember in Roman times Hispania (name taken from "rabbit's land" in phoenician) was supposedly full of forests everywhere. The AI (or you) is supposed to cut down most of those. ;)

If anything, I'd remove the desert from Almeria in the map. I'm not sure it's historically accurate.

I don't know how much of a correct solution it is (Jedi and Michael surely know better), but as regards the city naming of the area: Cadiz S of river, Huelva N, Sevilla inland.

Let's see if we can actually agree on what the terrain there will look like, then we'll see where the cities go.

I know that jedi is against water access for Seville, and the others are mostly for it, I don't care which we go with as long as Seville gets founded and the terrain seems more or less accurate (for example, I wouldn't be happy if we implemented Jessiecat's version of the area as shown in his screenshot).

Would it be too weird if Seville started out as coast but then the terrain switched to land somewhere in the 15th or 16th century?

EDIT: Yes, it would be, nevermind :)

Let's see if we can actually agree on what the terrain there will look like, then we'll see where the cities go.

I know that jedi is against water access for Seville, and the others are mostly for it, I don't care which we go with as long as Seville gets founded and the terrain seems more or less accurate (for example, I wouldn't be happy if we implemented Jessiecat's version of the area as shown in his screenshot).

Would it be too weird if Seville started out as coast but then the terrain switched to land somewhere in the 15th or 16th century?

EDIT: Yes, it would be, nevermind :)

I mostly agree with you I guess. But it's all academic as Cordoba won't build Seville if it's inland. Both that AI and the human player would build on the coast, wouldn't they?

The AI gets its builds based on the settler map. A strong Seville tile with high value at the AI settler map will get founded, (I am thinking of the 3W-1S of Cordoba)

The AI gets its builds based on the settler map. A strong Seville tile with high value at the AI settler map will get founded, (I am thinking of the 3W-1S of Cordoba)

Your proposal for moving it a tile South is in question because of the tilt. This is what sparked the whole discussion about redoing Spain. I think if the map stays the same, Seville should be the same longitude as Cordoba.

Sorry, many mistakes, correct map below

It will, but we also want the AI to be competitive. I'd rather have a city called something else than Sevilla, than Sevilla and a worse location. Honestly, I'd rather teach the AI to find the strongest spots available, which may differ each game, than teach it to found cities in accurate positions. The game simply can't simulate it all on such a high detail that the whole picture fits. Then we would have to give mines with coal a +10 food bonus, to simulate the large urbanization in the 19th centuries in cities near coal mines.

So, I have no objection for Sevilla to be coastal, but make sure then that it is the best location in the region.

And here is the corrected city name map of Andalucia (the reworked part, i.e. the most of Cordoban core area). Demanded sites are pointed with an ! . Open to criticism and changes.

------------------------Cordoba---Cordoba----Cordoba
Huelva-Sevilla--Sevilla---Cordoba---Cordoba!---Cordoba
Huelva-Sevilla!-Sevilla---Cordoba---Cordoba----Cordoba--Granada
Cadiz--Ronda---Ronda---Antequera-Antequera--Granada!-Granada
Cadiz--Algeciras-Algeciras-Malaga---Malaga-----Nerja----Nerja------Almeria!--Almeria
-----------------------------------------------Nerja----Nerja

NOTE: Nerja was important during the early medieval era (Narixa). In its place, I am thinking of putting a more lately flourishing city (Ejido?) for the Spanish, while keeping Nerja for the Arabs.

Guys,

I'm sorry to report that no fix is possible for Iberia. Looking at it from a normalized projection, in order to undo that minor tilt and make it more accurate, I'm going to have to totally redo Africa west of Tunisia, and parts of France.

I can do this, but it's going to create a ton of work for other people. I'll post a version of what the outline of this will look like, but I don't think that the benefits are worth the costs at this point.


Edit: In looking around for maps on the redo, this is the map I believe I used the first time out, which is why the tilt is present.
http://iam.classics.unc.edu/map/maps/area_a1_web.jpg Note, interestingly, that in this map Sevilla is almost coastal, as the Guadalquivir estuary hasn't silted up yet.



Edit 2: I posted a .rar of the new outline/rivers/mtns/major city locations in the map thread. If you can't open it, back up a copy of your RFCEurope file (in publicmaps in the RFCEurope folder) to your desktop, move the .rar file to publicmaps, unpack it, and rename the WBsave inside to RFCEurope.

I'm going to hold off on continuing to work on this until I hear what others think about it. I like the tilted version better, but if people want to change it, I can keep going to redo Africa and add more detail and resources. As that represents another 4-6 hours of work, I'm going to wait for feedback before doing it.

I think a reworking of Iberia and NW Africa is in order, since I still feel that Al-Andalus is still too weak due to geography and resource placement

I think a reworking of Iberia and NW Africa is in order, since I still feel that Al-Andalus is still too weak due to geography and resource placement

I'm redoing resource placement in NW Africa regardless of whether we go with the shifted Iberian peninsula or not, so no worries there.

I did play (and win) a game today as Cordoba without much difficulty. It needs work, but it's hardly hopeless.

I'm redoing resource placement in NW Africa regardless of whether we go with the shifted Iberian peninsula or not, so no worries there.

I did play (and win) a game today as Cordoba without much difficulty. It needs work, but it's hardly hopeless.

Ok I'm happy that you are shifting resources. And I still think that Cordoba is still not accurately represented AI wise mostly as they don't get as powerful, you yourself must be good at the game but I'm sure there are others who don't find it as easy

Ok I'm happy that you are shifting resources. And I still think that Cordoba is still not accurately represented AI wise mostly as they don't get as powerful, you yourself must be good at the game but I'm sure there are others who don't find it as easy

I agree. Compared with Spain, which is far too easy now, Cordoba suffers from a poor tech rate, early instability due to poor foriegn relations and an Orthodox Arabia that leaves it as the only Islamic civ. We had it well- balanced a couple of months ago but now the advantage has totally shifted in favour of Spain. Cordoba isn't worth playing now IMO.

Cordoba needs a huge AI tweak too. I want to see conflict in Iberia when I get there. I typically play after I win UHV just to see how much I can conquer before collapse. In a Bulgarian game I just finished I had all of Eastern Europe and all of the west up to France except Genoa. Seeing as France had been my vassal since near the start, I moved into Iberia to find a boring situation with a ton of independent Cordoban cities with barely any defenses and huge armies in almost every Spanish city, which had Portugal as a vassal. In an effort to spice things up I WB'd Cordoba back in with full tech tree(a lot of civs had this already), completed infrastructure, a huge army and a large navy and put them at war with Spain/Portugal. They collapsed in like 4 turns.

It's boring when they can't survive at all :/

Orthodox Arabia has been fixed for the next version and in my experience Cordoba more often than not surpasses Spain in power.

Orthodox Arabia has been fixed for the next version and in my experience Cordoba more often than not surpasses Spain in power.

Not in my experience. In all my recent games Cordoba's production and tech rate has been very low. And the hit on stability it takes esp. after Spain spawns puts it on -20 or worse all the time. In my last game, every time I built a city in Morocco it revolted in a few turns. It's just much weaker since we made Spain so much stronger. And the AI Cordoba always collapses while Spain becomes one of the leaders in all the games I've played.

Not in my experience. In all my recent games Cordoba's production and tech rate has been very low. And the hit on stability it takes esp. after Spain spawns puts it on -20 or worse all the time. In my last game, every time I built a city in Morocco it revolted in a few turns. It's just much weaker since we made Spain so much stronger. And the AI Cordoba always collapses while Spain becomes one of the leaders in all the games I've played.

I really couldn't agree more, this is the exact problem I have seen time and time again where you have a super weak and collapsing Cordoban Empire and a mega Spain, in real history we should see a Cordoba that takes ALL of Iberia (except for the most NW bit, Christian territory) and it should invade all the way up into France before stopping (or not stopping;))

Not in my experience. In all my recent games Cordoba's production and tech rate has been very low. And the hit on stability it takes esp. after Spain spawns puts it on -20 or worse all the time. In my last game, every time I built a city in Morocco it revolted in a few turns. It's just much weaker since we made Spain so much stronger. And the AI Cordoba always collapses while Spain becomes one of the leaders in all the games I've played.

I've seen both outcomes. I will say that in my experience Cordoba is considerably more likely to collapse than Spain, largely due to the diplomatic stability issue. As far as the competitive balance goes, that seems like the big problem to me. The resource allocations need a little work, but I'm working on it. The starting units are fine, and there's enough of a head start that if you play your start correctly, you should be in excellent shape when Spain spawns. The tech/production modifier is lower than Spain's, but the Islamic buildings make up for the tech issue, and the faith bonus is supposed to make up for both unit production and city growth. Unfortunately, the faith bonus for Cordoba is more limited than it is for Arabia - it might be worth adjusting that, as they're really on the front lines of spreading the religion and conquering new lands.

Anyway, having played both, I'd say that the issue is that Spain is slightly unbalanced - too easy in terms of production modifier and stability - and Cordoba is a more challenging play in terms of stability. The disparity between the two is what causes that imbalance - the AI is rarely able to hang on for the whole game as Cordoba. In the event that they do, they're powerful, but it really requires a strong Arabia as well.

I just got an idea for a new Dutch UP: Cities can always work their 8 surrounding tiles, even when another city already works them. Also, the Dutch can build cities with only 1 tile between them. While these sounds strange, it actually perfectly fits in history:

- The area is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
- It encourages close city building. In the 17th century, 30% of the Dutch people lived in cities, the highest number at that time. At least, it will look more urbanized visually.

Also, it would solve the problem of the many resources, that were placed only to give the Dutch something to survive. When Burgundy settles Amsterdam early, it helps them a lot. And the current UP (+2 trade routes) is not so useful when there are only 1 or 2 Dutch cities.

I have no idea if it is possible to code this, because it absolutely requires some serious SDK work. But I think it might solve the problems we have currently.:)

I think that's a great idea and I hope it wont be too hard to code.

It will be either very easy or very hard, I am not sure. I will look at it.

I just got an idea for a new Dutch UP: Cities can always work their 8 surrounding tiles, even when another city already works them. Also, the Dutch can build cities with only 1 tile between them. While these sounds strange, it actually perfectly fits in history:

- The area is one of the most densely populated areas in the world.
- It encourages close city building. In the 17th century, 30% of the Dutch people lived in cities, the highest number at that time. At least, it will look more urbanized visually.

Also, it would solve the problem of the many resources, that were placed only to give the Dutch something to survive. When Burgundy settles Amsterdam early, it helps them a lot. And the current UP (+2 trade routes) is not so useful when there are only 1 or 2 Dutch cities.

I have no idea if it is possible to code this, because it absolutely requires some serious SDK work. But I think it might solve the problems we have currently.:)

That's a really cool idea. I hope it's codeable. It doesn't quite solve the resource problem, though - while multiple cities may benefit from working the same tile, there's only one of the resource available, which makes trading for other resources difficult/impossible. I'll keep thinking about a solution for that problem.

I was wondering if for the new 2.8 alpha version, is there settler maps which I can use (and other of course)? Thanks:D

Also I was wondering why Arabia's strength was toned down, when they already don't expand that much out of the Middle East like there supposed to?

One last question, when will the Turks/Ottoman civ be fixed because they still act quite dead in the game and don't do much, when in reality they should be able to easily conquer Anatolia and then Constantinople.

But all in all great work guys, literally 1-2 years ago this mod was dead but now its really coming together:)

To answer your question, I think the Ottomans will be strengthened enough in the next Alpha (whenever it comes out?) to enable them to dominate Anatolia and capture Constantinople. The problem with the Arabs is they collapse in too many games because they can't defend against the barb invasions and Crusades as well, esp. when the latter follows so soon after the barbs. My main gripe is that after collapsing they don't respawn as they should. They should respawn at least a couple of times if they collapse early. The sooner we sort out the whole resurrection issue the better, IMO.

Ok, where to begin, I recently played my first game of RFC Europe Alpha Version 2.8 and I started as the Arabs and I was not impressed with a couple of things. I know this is a long list but these are all my constructive criticisms which I sat down while playing and wrote down on two sheets of paper, so please take my suggestions into consideration as I put a lot of thought into this. Also if your confused by any of my suggestions, please don't hesitate to ask about them as here I cut down on my reasoning to save space. These might be a bit out of order but thats because I wrote it as I saw it ;)

Ok here we go:
1. First off I found elephants in Iceland (LOL). You guys might want to change that
2. The Cordobans became Orthodox Christian even though only ONE of there cities was Christian while the ALL the rest were Muslim. To counter this just give them 1-2 more Imams to convert there cities
3. Byzantines NEED more cities in Anatolia to unify all of Anatolia under one culture and for the Ottomans to spawn and be able to get more cities quickly therefore crumbling the Byzantines faster. I would suggest giving 2 more cities in Anatolia. Also too simulate the Byzantines large navy there should be 2-3 boats when they spawn (remember the Arabs even had to move the capital of Egypt from Alexandria to Cairo just because of there navy, if you want more evidence on there navy just ask me)
4. Like mentioned before Arabia is TOO TOO weak in the military (only three horse archers isn't going to get them far) and technologically. For Gouod's sake these guys were hundreds of years ahead of everyone else the same goes for the Cordobans
5. Al-Qods should be the Muslim holy city as its the 3rd holiest city for Muslims. So take out the Masajid Al-Haram (The Ka'ba, which should be in Mecca) and replace it with the Al-Asqa Mosque (Dome of Rock), it should spawn there when Islam spreads to Al-Qods. Also a good idea would be to switch around the powers for the Masajid Al-Haram and the Al-Asqa Mosque to give the Arabs the same benefits. So now when the Arabs found Damascus as there Capital there should be an Imam to spread Islam to Damascus initially (just so Christianity doesn't spread to Damascus).
6. There should be a Far East Asia trade route (early on though) right next to Damascus, to represent the Silk Road. Also there should be something to represent the Arabian spice trade between Arabia and South East Asia resulting in the conversion of thousands to Islam in modern day Malaysia and Indonesia (ask for further details on ideas)
7. Too many random animals, for example, for some reason there were 3 lions in Crete??
8. Overall there is a general lack of historical independent cities in N. Africa, Anatolia (as mentioned before) and Central/Eastern Europe. If you guys need help with this I can give you a good list of needed independent cities.
9. N. Africa and the Middle East are TOO desolate with deserts they need more plains/grasslands initially, and then at a certain point switch it too desert or plains. This will symbolize the rise and fall of Arabia. (I didn't explain this much for FAR more reasoning ask later, I will explain in more depth)
10. You guys should think about changing the Genoan and Cordoban leader heads from Mehmed and Alexander to more suitable leader heads
11. For some reason the Civic icon graphics keep annoying me that they havn't been changed. If you guys need help finding graphics a great place to look at is Rise of Mankind just ask Zappara first.
12. La Mezquita in Spanish means "The Great Mosque". Therefore I would just change it too its original name Aljama Mosque. Anyways everyone knows it as a Mosque before a Cathedral.
13. Back to Damascus. Damascus should be the Capital of Arabia but it should already be founded (like Constantinople or Rome) from the beginning of the game, therefore make Damscus have Orthodox Christianity since it still to today has quite a big Orthodox minority plus they have a patriarch in Damascus. Also Sour (Tyre) should have Catholicism as well to represent the large amount of Lebanese Maronites (Catholics) there.
14. Try to be unique with the Wonder powers as a lot of them are that they enable all the civics for some category which I think truly ruins the game. I guess 1 or 2 is OK but the rest should be something else. Once again if you guys need help with coming up with ideas ask me.
15. A good idea for future versions of the game is to have a seperate Muslim (for the Arabs and Cordobans) technology tree. And then later on maybe around the 1400's about (I would say the 1600's for historical accuracy, but for gameplay 1400's is ok) revert it back to the normal tech tree with the rest of the European countries to show the catching up of the European power during the Renaissance especially.
16. Don't enable skirmishers if a civilization does not have access to horses, I find it a bit silly
17. Another idea for a faction (so you can get rid one independent) would be to add the Fatimids or Mamlukes represented as Egypt when Arabia or whomever is controlling the Egypt area becomes too unstable, so in some games they might now appear. Because then you could make the Egyptians Shi'ite and have the Ottomans or Arabians as Sunni's (and the Mongols as Shi'ite's and the Timurds and Cordobans as Sunni's). You could take out Judaism (which dosn't spread much anyways) and add the Shi'ite's instead.
18. To enable #17 and just in general it would be great if you could expand the Middle East a little bit more to allow for more room for cities like Cairo and Damascus to grow. You could then add Mecca or Medina and move Islam's holy city there. Again this could be done in future versions
19. There should be more of the 'timber' resource around Sour and Lebanon in general to represent the Ceder's of Lebanon, just adding 1-2 more should be great
20. PLEASE change the textures for the Muslim Buildings (the religious buildings) from the Indian style to a more Middle Eastern style, another one of my annoyances
21. Please explain what an "Islamic Sahn" is because I thoroughly believe I or someone else can come up with something better than that. Once again ask me for ideas.
22. What about Arabian 'Conquest' or Colonial Projects which can be constructed to represent the conquest of Persia, Central Asia and the Arabian Peninsula (Oman and Yemen) and East Africa (could just be represented by a trade link)
23. Change the Arbalest icon graphic to make it look less Chinese.
24. You guys should make the tech 'Plate Armor' come later (or just the ability to cut down forests), until more of the Northern European civilizations arrive and mature a bit, as to simulate the great dense forests (which there should be more of, more forests and which give you -1 food,) of Northern Europe which were only later cut down and turned into farmland causing a boom in production in Europe causing it to catch up with the Muslim world, while in the Middle East most of the farmland was used up turning it into desert (causing desertification). Again for more explanation ask me as I can explain it further.
25. I find that when the Northern European civilizations spawn they are too advanced for there own good. These guys were settling Barbarian tribes, not predecessors of the Romans! They should be put back a few techs but give them maybe more settlers (too settle N Europeans great stretches of land) and/or preferably many more military units.
26. This i'm only 50-50% on but I think that Germany's UHV to have the largest army should be moved to the 1700's when Fredrick the Great was around, during the militarization of Germany. Shamefully I'm not hearsed to well in the history of Germany.
27. Please explain why there are 'relics' in Southern Russia?? What are they supposed to symbolize?
28. Lastly (finally), why is there coffee east of Damascus? Coffee originated in the Yemen (or in Oman not 100% sure), so therefore you should put it at the bottom of the map on the Arabian Peninsula.

I hope no one is offended by my suggestions, the only reason I sat down to do all of this work was out of my great respect for your guys work and my love for this mod and the wish to see it succeed, and like I said before I'm one of your guys oldest fans :goodjob:

Ok, where to begin, I recently played my first game of RFC Europe Alpha Version 2.8 and I started as the Arabs and I was not impressed with a couple of things. I know this is a long list but these are all my constructive criticisms which I sat down while playing and wrote down on two sheets of paper, so please take my suggestions into consideration as I put a lot of thought into this. Also if your confused by any of my suggestions, please don't hesitate to ask about them as here I cut down on my reasoning to save space. These might be a bit out of order but thats because I wrote it as I saw it ;)

I'm going to respond to these point-by-point. I'm sorry if this takes a lot of space - if you're a longtime modder here, just skip over it; if you're newish, go ahead and read it as these are largely common questions.


Ok here we go:
1. First off I found elephants in Iceland (LOL). You guys might want to change that
The elephants represent walrus ivory. We're working on the artwork.

2. The Cordobans became Orthodox Christian even though only ONE of there cities was Christian while the ALL the rest were Muslim. To counter this just give them 1-2 more Imams to convert there cities
Reasonable suggestion. I've never seen Cordoba be anything other than Muslim, but that's a good idea.

3. Byzantines NEED more cities in Anatolia to unify all of Anatolia under one culture and for the Ottomans to spawn and be able to get more cities quickly therefore crumbling the Byzantines faster. I would suggest giving 2 more cities in Anatolia. Also too simulate the Byzantines large navy there should be 2-3 boats when they spawn (remember the Arabs even had to move the capital of Egypt from Alexandria to Cairo just because of there navy, if you want more evidence on there navy just ask me)
Adding more cities in Anatolia creates a few problems. First, the maintenance of all of the Byzantine cities is a bear - it's hard for them to have any tech rate at all with all of the GPT they have to spend. Adding more cities makes that worse, and most of the ones we might add (Trebizond, Antalya, etc.) wouldn't have many advantages to offset the maintenance penalty. Second, more cities in Anatolia gives the Turks no room to expand when they do spawn. I realize that the Ottomans as they're currently coded are too weak to do much (and the territory they get isn't very hospitable), but we're working on both of those things.

4. Like mentioned before Arabia is TOO TOO weak in the military (only three horse archers isn't going to get them far) and technologically. For Gouod's sake these guys were hundreds of years ahead of everyone else the same goes for the Cordobans
I agree that the starting military is weak, and we should probably improve it to ensure that they're able to take at least a couple of Byzantine cities from the start. The problem with Arabia is that they're an incredibly powerful civ if played correctly - the existing tech advantage and buildings/wonders which they have access to in the early game, along with a handful of great cities (al-Qods, Sour, Alexandria, Cairo-on-the-hill, easily Tunis) give them such a head start that it's impossible for anyone to catch up. Balancing Arabia/Cordoba will be a challenge, but as it currently stands I'd rank both civs as easy to play.

5. Al-Qods should be the Muslim holy city as its the 3rd holiest city for Muslims. So take out the Masajid Al-Haram (The Ka'ba, which should be in Mecca) and replace it with the Al-Asqa Mosque (Dome of Rock), it should spawn there when Islam spreads to Al-Qods. Also a good idea would be to switch around the powers for the Masajid Al-Haram and the Al-Asqa Mosque to give the Arabs the same benefits. So now when the Arabs found Damascus as there Capital there should be an Imam to spread Islam to Damascus initially (just so Christianity doesn't spread to Damascus).

Obviously, Damascus isn't the most logical holy city for Islam, but as we're having Islam founded as Arabia spawns, that will always end up as the holy city. They don't need an imam to convert Damascus, as their unique power will spread Islam to any Arabian city, including Damascus - if anything, it would make more sense to have Christianity in Damascus to represent the substantial Christian minority throughout Syria. I'm not sure there's a way of building or moving the holy city in al-Qods after the flip.

6. There should be a Far East Asia trade route (early on though) right next to Damascus, to represent the Silk Road. Also there should be something to represent the Arabian spice trade between Arabia and South East Asia resulting in the conversion of thousands to Islam in modern day Malaysia and Indonesia (ask for further details on ideas)

There are silk plantations next to Damascus and Aleppo to represent the Silk Road and all of the trade it generated. Neither region was known for its silk. The problem with adding a Far East trade route is that it's not workable until the discovery of Astronomy, so that doesn't help them at all - it would make sense to have some sort of representation of the spice trades, though, possibly in the form of a spice plantation near al-Aqaba. Others have argued for the inclusion of an Indian Ocean access resource in the Red Sea, which would make sense except for the Astronomy issue.


7. Too many random animals, for example, for some reason there were 3 lions in Crete??
8. Overall there is a general lack of historical independent cities in N. Africa, Anatolia (as mentioned before) and Central/Eastern Europe. If you guys need help with this I can give you a good list of needed independent cities.

Proposals are welcome, but we wanted to leave some freedom of choice for city placement, and giving the independents more cities would make them that much more militarily powerful and more intimidating for the AI to attack. We're unlikely to add many more independent cities.


9. N. Africa and the Middle East are TOO desolate with deserts they need more plains/grasslands initially, and then at a certain point switch it too desert or plains. This will symbolize the rise and fall of Arabia. (I didn't explain this much for FAR more reasoning ask later, I will explain in more depth)

This is my problem - I made N. Africa more barren than it actually is to prevent Cordoba from establishing an extremely powerful base which its enemies can't reach to invade. As it currently stands, Cordoba doesn't expand that way, which makes my fears less reasonable - I fully intend to make the land more fertile in the next update. As far as the terrain switch goes..... that makes historical sense, but is more complicated to code and far more disruptive to the player or AI. I recognize that the areas that you mentioned were more fertile at the beginning of the mod's time period than they are today, but I don't have the coding skills to make the terrain shift. Someone else may, and may be interested in pursuing it.

10. You guys should think about changing the Genoan and Cordoban leader heads from Mehmed and Alexander to more suitable leader heads
11. For some reason the Civic icon graphics keep annoying me that they havn't been changed. If you guys need help finding graphics a great place to look at is Rise of Mankind just ask Zappara first.

Working on it/no comment.

12. La Mezquita in Spanish means "The Great Mosque". Therefore I would just change it too its original name Aljama Mosque. Anyways everyone knows it as a Mosque before a Cathedral.

No objections here.

13. Back to Damascus. Damascus should be the Capital of Arabia but it should already be founded (like Constantinople or Rome) from the beginning of the game, therefore make Damscus have Orthodox Christianity since it still to today has quite a big Orthodox minority plus they have a patriarch in Damascus. Also Sour (Tyre) should have Catholicism as well to represent the large amount of Lebanese Maronites (Catholics) there.

Here's the problem with this - we have no civs which flip a city as their capital, as they all begin with settlers and found their own. There may be a way to do this, as I'm fairly certain that there were civs in RFC that did it, but the mechanics are something we haven't worked out yet. We could manage this by pulling the Arabian start back to the very beginning of the mod, but that would be stretching history considerably. I'm with you on the religious minorities.


14. Try to be unique with the Wonder powers as a lot of them are that they enable all the civics for some category which I think truly ruins the game. I guess 1 or 2 is OK but the rest should be something else. Once again if you guys need help with coming up with ideas ask me.

I also feel that we have too many wonders, and too many of them have game-changing properties. I'd like to see them cut down as well.

15. A good idea for future versions of the game is to have a seperate Muslim (for the Arabs and Cordobans) technology tree. And then later on maybe around the 1400's about (I would say the 1600's for historical accuracy, but for gameplay 1400's is ok) revert it back to the normal tech tree with the rest of the European countries to show the catching up of the European power during the Renaissance especially.

I don't think that's going to happen. It increases the learning curve and makes the game mechanics that much more difficult. The way it's currently done, where the Muslim civs start with a substantial tech lead and buildings which greatly accelerate their tech rate up to the late Medieval period seems like a good balance to me.


16. Don't enable skirmishers if a civilization does not have access to horses, I find it a bit silly

Agreed.

17. Another idea for a faction (so you can get rid one independent) would be to add the Fatimids or Mamlukes represented as Egypt when Arabia or whomever is controlling the Egypt area becomes too unstable, so in some games they might now appear. Because then you could make the Egyptians Shi'ite and have the Ottomans or Arabians as Sunni's (and the Mongols as Shi'ite's and the Timurds and Cordobans as Sunni's). You could take out Judaism (which dosn't spread much anyways) and add the Shi'ite's instead.
18. To enable #17 and just in general it would be great if you could expand the Middle East a little bit more to allow for more room for cities like Cairo and Damascus to grow. You could then add Mecca or Medina and move Islam's holy city there. Again this could be done in future versions

No. This is not going to happen. You have no idea how much work is involved in this proposal. When we began working on the mod, my original map went to the Urals and the Persian Gulf - we decided that the mod should be Eurocentric, so we eliminated Mesopotamia. The only way to do this was to shift the entire map one square at a time to the east. It was an extremely tedious and time-consuming exercise, and I will not be doing it again - even if it didn't involve redoing every single settler map, city map, and other game features which involve map coordinates in any way. Without the rest of Mesopotamia, there's not much justification for adding Shi'a Islam. We're also not going to replace independents with other civs.


19. There should be more of the 'timber' resource around Sour and Lebanon in general to represent the Cedars of Lebanon, just adding 1-2 more should be great

Much of the area had been deforested for charcoal by the time timber becomes important in the mod. Sour is also one of the most productive cities on the map, particularly in the early game - adding more timber would increase that advantage further. There might be some justification for adding a second timber resource north of Antioch, but there's not really anywhere to put it in Lebanon. The existing timber is meant to represent the cedars that you referred to.


20. PLEASE change the textures for the Muslim Buildings (the religious buildings) from the Indian style to a more Middle Eastern style, another one of my annoyances
21. Please explain what an "Islamic Sahn" is because I thoroughly believe I or someone else can come up with something better than that. Once again ask me for ideas.
22. What about Arabian 'Conquest' or Colonial Projects which can be constructed to represent the conquest of Persia, Central Asia and the Arabian Peninsula (Oman and Yemen) and East Africa (could just be represented by a trade link)

Please offer suggestions for a building to replace the Sahn, if you don't like it.
Would all civs have access to the Arabian conquest? We talked about and rejected the idea of individual colonial projects - giving the Russians Siberia, for instance. Again, there are ample resources available to Arabia and nobody else (coffee, silks) which represent these trade links.


23. Change the Arbalest icon graphic to make it look less Chinese.
24. You guys should make the tech 'Plate Armor' come later (or just the ability to cut down forests), until more of the Northern European civilizations arrive and mature a bit, as to simulate the great dense forests (which there should be more of, more forests and which give you -1 food,) of Northern Europe which were only later cut down and turned into farmland causing a boom in production in Europe causing it to catch up with the Muslim world, while in the Middle East most of the farmland was used up turning it into desert (causing desertification). Again for more explanation ask me as I can explain it further.

The ability to chop forests is already fairly late in the game. The proportion of dense forest to woodland could be changed, and there may be some merit to that proposal.


25. I find that when the Northern European civilizations spawn they are too advanced for there own good. These guys were settling Barbarian tribes, not predecessors of the Romans! They should be put back a few techs but give them maybe more settlers (too settle N Europeans great stretches of land) and/or preferably many more military units.

Two problems with this idea. First, the Northern European civs start out technologically backwards and stay technologically backwards for much of the game. There are some exceptions - Sweden especially - but the lack of starting techs means that civs like France and Burgundy which spawn early are hopelessly behind and pathetically weak in the middle to late game. Second, controlling great stretches of land is actually disadvantageous for tech rate without building up the infrastructure to take advantage of it. Giving them more military units just increases the likelihood that they destroy each other and Germany collapses (as it always does). Which civs are you complaining about, specifically?


26. This i'm only 50-50% on but I think that Germany's UHV to have the largest army should be moved to the 1700's when Fredrick the Great was around, during the militarization of Germany. Shamefully I'm not hearsed to well in the history of Germany.
27. Please explain why there are 'relics' in Southern Russia?? What are they supposed to symbolize?
28. Lastly (finally), why is there coffee east of Damascus? Coffee originated in the Yemen (or in Oman not 100% sure), so therefore you should put it at the bottom of the map on the Arabian Peninsula.

The relics in the Carpathians are there by mistake. I'm taking them out in the next map update - basically, they were dropped there as the mouse dragged, and they don't show up with an obvious icon so I missed them.

The coffee is next to Damascus (and down by al-Aqaba) to represent that coffee from the rest of the Arabian peninsula, just as the silk plantations near Damascus are intended to represent the silk from countries further east.

I hope no one is offended by my suggestions, the only reason I sat down to do all of this work was out of my great respect for your guys work and my love for this mod and the wish to see it succeed, and like I said before I'm one of your guys oldest fans :goodjob:

No offense taken. My responses aren't designed to offend either - I'm sorry if a few of them are a little blunt. We appreciate your feedback and suggestions, and some of them are very helpful.

Very comprehensive reply, st. lucifer. Covered almost everything I was going to say. I agree that the Arabs should start with better military. Maybe with the Farriers tech from the start and 4 or 5 Ghazis instead of horse archers. And the Sahn building is pretty useless as yet another happiness building and should be scrapped IMO. Though I disagree about the Arabs being that easy. With the 25% Islam UHV and all the barb invasions and crusades they can be quite a challenge at the moment.

@st.lucifer

Thank You for your prompt and well written response, I know understand your position better. But two big things I have to disagree with you on, is when you said that the Arabs and Cordobans are easy, I had a hard time believing that because just like jessiecat said, they most definitely are not and require more and better units to help them maintain order and stability. Also I hardly doubt that 1 more city well placed city with resources already hooked up to it is going to bring down the Byzantine Empire, so adding one more would not only help the Ottomans (Because it could flip to them) but it would not harm the Byzantines (until the Ottomans arrived). Also something which you may not be able to change but which I would still love to see changed is the replacement of trade routs with random resource placement on the map, couldn't you just create a "Silk Road" System next to Damascus that would be enabled from the start? The same goes for Indian Ocean trade to represent the Spice Trade that happened. I'm also happy your going to revert some tiles in N Africa and the Middle East to grasslands as that would greatly help, to answer your question about the tiles flipping to desert, that is supposed to represent desertification which took place, whcih you can then revert some of the grassland terrains into desert, slowly weakening the Arabs and the Cordoban cities in North Africa. A mod for RFC has already done this by changing certain tiles around the world on the date 1600 to forests I think, I will get you a link soon. Also I strongly back the idea of having more dense forests in Northern Europe and France (to a lesser extent though). This way coupled with more hills (with dense forests on them) once you are enabled to cut down trees, there will be a production BOOM!! this will enable them to catch up as all the previously dense forests giving them -1 food will have become extra production to there cities and be turned into farmland/cottages bringing there economy to a very big advantage.

@st.lucifer

Thank You for your prompt and well written response, I know understand your position better. But two big things I have to disagree with you on, is when you said that the Arabs and Cordobans are easy, I had a hard time believing that because just like jessiecat said, they most definitely are not and require more and better units to help them maintain order and stability. Also I hardly doubt that 1 more city well placed city with resources already hooked up to it is going to bring down the Byzantine Empire, so adding one more would not only help the Ottomans (Because it could flip to them) but it would not harm the Byzantines (until the Ottomans arrived). Also something which you may not be able to change but which I would still love to see changed is the replacement of trade routs with random resource placement on the map, couldn't you just create a "Silk Road" System next to Damascus that would be enabled from the start? The same goes for Indian Ocean trade to represent the Spice Trade that happened. I'm also happy your going to revert some tiles in N Africa and the Middle East to grasslands as that would greatly help, to answer your question about the tiles flipping to desert, that is supposed to represent desertification which took place, whcih you can then revert some of the grassland terrains into desert, slowly weakening the Arabs and the Cordoban cities in North Africa. A mod for RFC has already done this by changing certain tiles around the world on the date 1600 to forests I think, I will get you a link soon. Also I strongly back the idea of having more dense forests in Northern Europe and France (to a lesser extent though). This way coupled with more hills (with dense forests on them) once you are enabled to cut down trees, there will be a production BOOM!! this will enable them to catch up as all the previously dense forests giving them -1 food will have become extra production to there cities and be turned into farmland/cottages bringing there economy to a very big advantage.

I'm with you on the terrain shift idea - it's a good idea, and it would be neat to see implemented. My history thesis is on central Asia, so I'm aware of the desertification issue; your suggestion would be a much more accurate way of representing it. My concern is mostly with the coding burden and potential for error, but if there's a way to do it easily, I'm all for it.

The dense forest idea is also a good one. I'll expand the ones in Germany and put some in the Massif Central. I'm also tweaking central Anatolia a little in the next update to make it more city-friendly.

The pre-built silk plantations next to Damascus (an otherwise unremarkable city) are in many ways a more useful/better representation of the Silk Road than access to a resource of questionable value (think about it - the Atlantic/etc Access resources just enable building colonies late in the game.) By putting the silk and coffee plantations in, those cities become much richer and more valuable - and the plantations are occasionally destroyed by barbarians, just as the Silk Road link was frequently interrupted.

Maybe Cordoba isn't as easy as some of the others, but I've played two games as Arabia in which I built every single wonder without any sort of challenge, founded all of the corporations I wanted to (Hanseatic/Templars/Augsburg in all cities), controlled a ridiculous amount of territory and cities, had over 25% Islamic population within my own borders, tripled the score of the second place civ (Kiev), and could have easily won the game in any way I chose long before I reached the last UHV trigger. Arabia is incredibly easy with a little bit of skill and planning.

I wrote the mod component to which The Turk refers. If you all manage to agree on which tiles should be changed from Terrain A to Terrain B, it's quite easy to modify what I did to change a terrain feature shift to a terrain shift. But I suspect the former, rather than the latter, will be the challenge.

I wrote the mod component to which The Turk refers. If you all manage to agree on which tiles should be changed from Terrain A to Terrain B, it's quite easy to modify what I did to change a terrain feature shift to a terrain shift. But I suspect the former, rather than the latter, will be the challenge.

That's encouraging, thanks! I suspect you're probably right.

Turk, if you'd like to propose some tiles in the Levant for greening/desertification, I'm interested in hearing what you'd change.

That's encouraging, thanks! I suspect you're probably right.

Turk, if you'd like to propose some tiles in the Levant for greening/desertification, I'm interested in hearing what you'd change.

Sure I'll give you an image soon, just let me work on it:)

@The Turk: I will only point on the ideas that will not change, everything else is more or less a good idea or already under construction.

The entire founding of the Islam + Holy City has been discussed largely and the current situation is more due to code and game rules than anything else. There is no other clean way to deal with the situation, forcing a Holy City for a religion is hard and capitals should not be pre-founded. Think of it as: Damascus was there, but it was the Arabs that made it really important (and don't mind that they don't). The Islamic Holy City Shrine should be associated with the pilgrims making a stop at Damascus on their way to Mecca. Also, having it Jerusalem would really make the Crusades bad (loss of Jerusalem would be too much). Also, more Christianity in the Middle East would only destabilize Arabia.

Arabian conquest to the East has been somewhat addressed in the Islamic Faith Power and we are not changing the map. I know that Turkey and Arabia could be better represented, but our mod is RFC:Europe and we emphasize the Islamic-European history more than the Middle East.

Separate tech tree is redundant. Some revisions might improve it as well as Arabian sub-tree, but we are not making a complete separate one.

@The Turk: I will only point on the ideas that will not change, everything else is more or less a good idea or already under construction.

The entire founding of the Islam + Holy City has been discussed largely and the current situation is more due to code and game rules than anything else. There is no other clean way to deal with the situation, forcing a Holy City for a religion is hard and capitals should not be pre-founded. Think of it as: Damascus was there, but it was the Arabs that made it really important (and don't mind that they don't). The Islamic Holy City Shrine should be associated with the pilgrims making a stop at Damascus on their way to Mecca. Also, having it Jerusalem would really make the Crusades bad (loss of Jerusalem would be too much). Also, more Christianity in the Middle East would only destabilize Arabia.

Arabian conquest to the East has been somewhat addressed in the Islamic Faith Power and we are not changing the map. I know that Turkey and Arabia could be better represented, but our mod is RFC:Europe and we emphasize the Islamic-European history more than the Middle East.

Separate tech tree is redundant. Some revisions might improve it as well as Arabian sub-tree, but we are not making a complete separate one.

Ok sounds good, but I still don't think having the Ka'ba being built in Damascus is appropriate, why not you take out the Ka'ba and instead when Jerusalem flips (and converts to Islam) have it spawn the Al-Asqa Mosque (Dome Rock). That would much more historically accurate. Also about the tech tree thing, thats what I meant, not a COMPLETE new tech tree just a sub-tree that would later join back to the main one. The idea of having Damascus pre-founded came from the idea that Constantinople is per-founded, so I thought you guys could do the same for Damascus, also is it possible to give Damascus more buildings when it spawns then regular cities? And I still think that Jerusalem should be the Islamic holy city or at least, add a Medina to the bottom of the map and make it the holy city, that would be good to. Also I'm surprised that Christianity and Judaism destabilize Arabia, as technically the Muslims didn't mind them and respected there religion as well as tolerated it calling them "People of the Book". Therefore I think it should be that for the Arabians, they shouldn't get a stability hit when they have christianity and Judaism in there cities, if anything they should get a bonus for that (well that may bit too much though).

Ok sounds good, but I still don't think having the Ka'ba being built in Damascus is appropriate, why not you take out the Ka'ba and instead when Jerusalem flips (and converts to Islam) have it spawn the Al-Asqa Mosque (Dome Rock). That would much more historically accurate. Also about the tech tree thing, thats what I meant, not a COMPLETE new tech tree just a sub-tree that would later join back to the main one. The idea of having Damascus pre-founded came from the idea that Constantinople is per-founded, so I thought you guys could do the same for Damascus, also is it possible to give Damascus more buildings when it spawns then regular cities? And I still think that Jerusalem should be the Islamic holy city or at least, add a Medina to the bottom of the map and make it the holy city, that would be good to. Also I'm surprised that Christianity and Judaism destabilize Arabia, as technically the Muslims didn't mind them and respected there religion as well as tolerated it calling them "People of the Book". Therefore I think it should be that for the Arabians, they shouldn't get a stability hit when they have christianity and Judaism in there cities, if anything they should get a bonus for that (well that may bit too much though).

Two thoughts:

-Constantinople and Rome are pre-founded, and the civs start from 500 AD. That's easy. Coding that for a civ that starts after 500 AD is more difficult.
I'm with 3Miro on the Jerusalem issue - I meant to make the point about destablization by the Crusades in the earlier long post, but forgot.
-All religions destabilize all civs. We're not changing it for any individual civ, unless it would be as a UP. (Might be a good one for the Dutch, but they wouldn't see much/any benefit from it.)

anywho here are the pictures I have with dots to represent what they should be at the start, then change them back to what they were now. But what do you think about the wonder change, and getting rid of the Ka'ba, that can't be TOO hard to code?

oops! Sorry for using green dots, I now realize its really hard to spot them

I second st. Lucifer. I know it is not historically accurate, but from the gameplay point of view it makes most sense. Islam is the Arabic religion and it belongs to the "most Arabic" city. It terms of the gameplay dynamics, the city that is "the most yours" is your Capital. Jerusalem is a bad choice, since it may fall to the Crusades and that becomes a huge loss. Other cities (such as Medina or pushing Mecca's location) are potentially weaker and thus have the effect to weaken the effect (if it takes too long to build a Market and get the bonus or if you cannot use the faith point combined with other specialists or if you cannot use the extra culture to get all the silk sooner or to culture push the Byzantines) and that holds for both the AI and the Human.

anywho here are the pictures I have with dots to represent what they should be at the start, then change them back to what they were now. But what do you think about the wonder change, and getting rid of the Ka'ba, that can't be TOO hard to code?

oops! Sorry for using green dots, I now realize its really hard to spot them

We can do wonder and map changes.

We can do wonder and map changes.

Perfect;)! Ok as long as you guys do the map changes in the Middle East and in Germany and take out the Ka'ba and replace it with the Al-Asqa Mosque in Jerusalem I'll be more then happy! Also you might want to change the name of Jerusalem, while its part of the Byzantine Empire, I'm sure there was a better name for it.:)

I second st. Lucifer. I know it is not historically accurate, but from the gameplay point of view it makes most sense. Islam is the Arabic religion and it belongs to the "most Arabic" city. It terms of the gameplay dynamics, the city that is "the most yours" is your Capital. Jerusalem is a bad choice, since it may fall to the Crusades and that becomes a huge loss. Other cities (such as Medina or pushing Mecca's location) are potentially weaker and thus have the effect to weaken the effect (if it takes too long to build a Market and get the bonus or if you cannot use the faith point combined with other specialists or if you cannot use the extra culture to get all the silk sooner or to culture push the Byzantines) and that holds for both the AI and the Human.

I'm with both of you on all your points though I also see what The Turk is on about. Would it not be possible to have the Dome of the Rock built automatically in Jerusalem when it flips and becomes Muslim? No different from having the Church of the Nativity representing Christianity. Damascus would still remain the capitol, with the Masjid Al Haram representing the founding of Islam and some beefed-up resources so it can grow a bit stronger and have better production. Right now it's pretty weak and is always overshadowed by Sour and Jerusalem.
Also we need to address the issue of respawning and 2nd. leaderheads. When the Arabs switch from Abu Bakr
to Saladin, the capitol really should switch too, from Damascus to Alexandria or Cairo, as it did historically.

I'm with both of you on all your points though I also see what The Turk is on about. Would it not be possible to have the Dome of the Rock built automatically in Jerusalem when it flips and becomes Muslim? No different from having the Church of the Nativity representing Christianity. Damascus would still remain the capitol, with the Masjid Al Haram representing the founding of Islam and some beefed-up resources so it can grow a bit stronger and have better production. Right now it's pretty weak and is always overshadowed by Sour and Jerusalem.
Also we need to address the issue of respawning and 2nd. leaderheads. When the Arabs switch from Abu Bakr
to Saladin, the capitol really should switch too, from Damascus to Alexandria or Cairo, as it did historically.

Ya basically when Jerusalem flips to the Arabs, and becomes Muslim, you can also let the Dome of Rock Spawn into Jerusalem just like it did historically, and you can take out the Ka'ba which is supposed to be in Mecca. Anyways I really like the idea of letting the Arabs start off as Abu Bakr, and then letting them switch to Saladin and moving the capital to Cairo. This would be really could if you could pull that off, also you could then change the name from the Umayyad Dynasty to the Fatmid Dynasty

Ya basically when Jerusalem flips to the Arabs, and becomes Muslim, you can also let the Dome of Rock Spawn into Jerusalem just like it did historically, and you can take out the Ka'ba which is supposed to be in Mecca. Anyways I really like the idea of letting the Arabs start off as Abu Bakr, and then letting them switch to Saladin and moving the capital to Cairo. This would be really could if you could pull that off, also you could then change the name from the Umayyad Dynasty to the Fatmid Dynasty

Fatimids don't make much sense considering that it was Saladin & his uncle that put the final blow to Fatimid Caliphate and took Egypt from them. If anything it should be Ayyubid Dynasty or simply Sultanate of Egypt since that name includes both Ayyubids & Mamluks, everything from 1171 to Ottoman conquest.

Other than that, I too think Al-Aqsa should be the Muslim Shrine.

Fatimids don't make much sense considering that it was Saladin & his uncle that put the final blow to Fatimid Caliphate and took Egypt from them. If anything it should be Ayyubid Dynasty or simply Sultanate of Egypt since that name includes both Ayyubids & Mamluks, everything from 1171 to Ottoman conquest.

Other than that, I too think Al-Aqsa should be the Muslim Shrine.

Oops! ya your right, what I meant to say that it should be the Ayyubids in Egypt later on. And once again I urge the RFC Europe group to take out the Ka'ba and instead let the Al-Asqa Mosque spawn in Jerusalem, once it flips

Oops! ya your right, what I meant to say that it should be the Ayyubids in Egypt later on. And once again I urge the RFC Europe group to take out the Ka'ba and instead let the Al-Asqa Mosque spawn in Jerusalem, once it flips

I'm with you half and half. The Al-Aqsa Mosque should spawn in Jerusalem and the Ka'ba should remain in Damascus when Islam is founded. We need such a compromise, for the gameplay reasons already described.
Sedna and 3Miro, please decide on this and implement please.

anywho here are the pictures I have with dots to represent what they should be at the start, then change them back to what they were now. But what do you think about the wonder change, and getting rid of the Ka'ba, that can't be TOO hard to code?

oops! Sorry for using green dots, I now realize its really hard to spot them

I'm fine with those changes - I'm actually thinking about making the eastern part of the Nile delta more inhabitable anyway. The reason that the delta is plains rather than grassland is actually to make the cities better - there aren't many hammers available otherwise unless the whole area's covered in water wheels, which aren't much use early on.

On the Dome of the Rock issue - would it be a reasonable compromise to spawn the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem upon conquest, but as a ceremonial wonder only (perhaps it gives culture, but no other function?) That way there's an obvious Muslim holy building/wonder in Jerusalem, but the gift isn't a powerful unbalancer.

I'm fine with those changes - I'm actually thinking about making the eastern part of the Nile delta more inhabitable anyway. The reason that the delta is plains rather than grassland is actually to make the cities better - there aren't many hammers available otherwise unless the whole area's covered in water wheels, which aren't much use early on.

On the Dome of the Rock issue - would it be a reasonable compromise to spawn the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem upon conquest, but as a ceremonial wonder only (perhaps it gives culture, but no other function?) That way there's an obvious Muslim holy building/wonder in Jerusalem, but the gift isn't a powerful unbalancer.

So, you agree with my compromise as suggested (post 1933)?

I'm fine with those changes - I'm actually thinking about making the eastern part of the Nile delta more inhabitable anyway. The reason that the delta is plains rather than grassland is actually to make the cities better - there aren't many hammers available otherwise unless the whole area's covered in water wheels, which aren't much use early on.

I agree that plains are better than grasslands around the Nile delta, combined with farms and another hammer for the right civic, these cities can become quite productive, and most of them already become rather large because they work lots of coastal tiles. Grasslands make cottages more attractive, but then the player must choose between productive cottages and productive farms, which will probably the latter one as they are much more useful in Africa and the Levant.
Another thing: more plains (in stead of deserts) also means more land to farm when the area can be irrigated. So, this means that Arabia actually is going to grow faster after they discover a late game tech, which we are trying to avoid AFAIK.
And a final suggestion: please remove the plains at the edge of the map. The only thing they do is attracting the AI to build worthless cities there.

@jessiecat
I HAVE A GREAT IDEA! Add the Al-Asqa Mosque to Jerusalem when it flips, and take out the Ka'ba in Damascus and instead replace it with the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus (one of the oldest Mosque's in the world)
Look at this link for further info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Mosque

You can then just take all the abilities the Ka'ba gives you and give it to the Umayyad Mosque instead.:)

@Wessel V1
Ya I agree with you, you can just leave some desert on the edge of the map, the last thing we want is cities lined up against the edge of the map ;)

@jessiecat
I HAVE A GREAT IDEA! Add the Al-Asqa Mosque to Jerusalem when it flips, and take out the Ka'ba in Damascus and instead replace it with the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus (one of the oldest Mosque's in the world)
Look at this link for further info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad_Mosque

You can then just take all the abilities the Ka'ba gives you and give it to the Umayyad Mosque instead.:)

@Wessel V1
Ya I agree with you, you can just leave some desert on the edge of the map, the last thing we want is cities lined up against the edge of the map ;)

I agree. Basically just a matter of changing it's name.

Exactly not at all hard to do, just finding the texture is going to be a bit hard.

Oh and more importantly...

:eek:Happy Halloween from Turkey!:eek:

Hell yeah, it is Halloween today (we do not celebrate it in Greece though)

BTW: Antichrist post!1!!1!! :evil:

Is there any place where I can see the impact of civics like I can for the original version? The reason is that I'm playing as the Eastern Roman Empire, and recently switched to Merchant Republic and Selectorate with Serfdom and Vassalge and the others being my starting civics. This has led to massive civic penalties, even after the penalities from anarchy subside and I want to know why.

Is there any place where I can see the impact of civics like I can for the original version? The reason is that I'm playing as the Eastern Roman Empire, and recently switched to Merchant Republic and Selectorate with Serfdom and Vassalge and the others being my starting civics. This has led to massive civic penalties, even after the penalities from anarchy subside and I want to know why.

Try this (http://rhye.civfanatics.net/wiki/index.php?title=Rhye%27s_and_Fall_of_Civilization: _Europe_civics) link. But MR give a negative stability with most civics. So it's only useful in the later games. Or with a huge economy.

Guys, I just had to ask a quick question.

Are the modern day British descendant from Normans? If yes (I doubt it, but haven't seen any other cases), then TWO of the major powers in Europe (Russia being the other one) are descendant from the Vikings. Wait, are the modern day Russians descendant from the Vikings?

Just wanted to know.:)

Guys, I just had to ask a quick question.

Are the modern day British descendant from Normans? If yes (I doubt it, but haven't seen any other cases), then TWO of the major powers in Europe (Russia being the other one) are descendant from the Vikings. Wait, are the modern day Russians descendant from the Vikings?

Just wanted to know.:)

Yes and no... after Norman Conquest, French-speaking Normans (which weren't really "vikings" at that point) were the ruling class, but the majority of the populace was Anglo-Saxon. Two or three centuries later they were all "English". But if you count Russians as "descendants of Vikings" then you can count the English as well I guess, although it's not really correct in either case - Russians are first and foremost East Slavs but at one point were also invaded and ruled by Scandinavians who eventually mixed in. In the same way you can also count the Irish, (some) Scots and Sicilians, though those aren't exactly major powers ;)

You might want to do something about this. This isn't the first time something similar has happened when playing this mod.

You might want to do something about this. This isn't the first time something similar has happened when playing this mod.

I guess we could disable AI UHV wins before the human player starts.

Basically we should take this as another proof that the Russian UHV is waaayyyyy too easy.

Basically we should take this as another proof that the Russian UHV is waaayyyyy too easy.

Except that Yaroslav is the LH for the Kievan Rus.:mischief:

Haha. Yaroslav lead his country to victory before Willem van Oranje was even born :). I understand how this could happen. But, do you need Astrakhan (or raze it) to "control all Black Sea Coast east of (whatever it is)?" Making Astrakhan part of that area might be a way to fix the problem.

So anyways, I was going to post on how the Bysantine Empire is annoying.

Why can't the Bysantines be more like this in the screenshot? I wasn't playing as them, and I noticed that they actually controlled quite a bit of land! They even took over Damascus! (But they lost Aleppo :)). I know they have serious stability problems and they only exist because of their UP :lol:. Should they have a larger core area? But then again, this would hurt Turkey's stability (would it not?).

I also noticed in one of my games that they respawned. They didn't actually take Constantinople, but they took Greece and parts in the north like Tirana. I think they should be able to respawn. It would be cool if they came back as the Greeks or something, with roots from an unstable Ottoman Empire.

The conditions would be:
1. Bysantines haven't respawned before
2. Turkey has Collapsing stability
3. They can only respawn in an Ottoman-controlled Greece (taking Athens and possibly Thessaloniki)

It would be cool if they got a new unique name and leader too.

Yes the Byzantines re-spawn in modern-day Greece, however there aren't any conditions for their re-spawn so they could re-spawn even if, say, Bulgaria takes over them.

Except that Yaroslav is the LH for the Kievan Rus.:mischief:

*wonders how much harm has done him not being a playtester*

Well, at least I did not mention that the is the leader of Castille :lol:



So anyways, I was going to post on how the Bysantine Empire is annoying.

Why can't the Bysantines be more like this in the screenshot? I wasn't playing as them, and I noticed that they actually controlled quite a bit of land! They even took over Damascus! (But they lost Aleppo :)). I know they have serious stability problems and they only exist because of their UP :lol:. Should they have a larger core area? But then again, this would hurt Turkey's stability (would it not?).

It would hurt Turkish stability if we expanded Byzantine core area. Perhaps you are right that Byzantium should be a bit stronger vs Arabia (or that Arabia needs a bit more weakening or stability tweaking)

I also noticed in one of my games that they respawned. They didn't actually take Constantinople, but they took Greece and parts in the north like Tirana. I think they should be able to respawn. It would be cool if they came back as the Greeks or something, with roots from an unstable Ottoman Empire.

The conditions would be:
1. Bysantines haven't respawned before
2. Turkey has Collapsing stability
3. They can only respawn in an Ottoman-controlled Greece (taking Athens and possibly Thessaloniki)

It would be cool if they got a new unique name and leader too.

AFAIK, in case of respawn the 'Byzantines' will get renamed to Greece when the dynamic names get implemented (to do for next version). But I disagree about them getting a new LH.

The Greek revolt did not start until after the Napoleonic Wars, but eh, I guess we could have it come a few decades or centuries earlier. Still, it would probably be better to keep them as being Byzantines, and maybe even have a full name of "Byzantine Rebels."

Just theorizing.

The Greek revolt did not start until after the Napoleonic Wars, but eh, I guess we could have it come a few decades or centuries earlier. Still, it would probably be better to keep them as being Byzantines, and maybe even have a full name of "Byzantine Rebels."

Just theorizing.

The Greek influence in the authors of this mod want to see Greece, even if they have to stretch history a bit. ;) I actually think Greece has no place in this mod because the mod ends before Greece rose up, but whatever.

Why not have them respawn as Despotate of Epirus, Empire of Nicaea etc.?

The Greek influence in the authors of this mod want to see Greece, even if they have to stretch history a bit. ;) I actually think Greece has no place in this mod because the mod ends before Greece rose up, but whatever.

Why not have them respawn as Despotate of Epirus, Empire of Nicaea etc.?

The strange thing with that is that the capital will be kinda strange (despotate of Epirus or of Trabzon with Athens capital?) So the Greece case covers all successful or not attempts to make it independent (started at 1770, then at 1797, both failed). But heh, it will be a respawn under certain circumstances, not a surefire spawn (before being accused as ethnicist, same goes with Bulgaria :p).

The Greek influence in the authors of this mod want to see Greece, even if they have to stretch history a bit. ;) I actually think Greece has no place in this mod because the mod ends before Greece rose up, but whatever.

As one of the original so-called "authors of this mod", I can assure you that no particularly "Greek" influence was intended at any time. So, I agree, that Greece should have absolutely no place in this mod as it ends in 1800.
With no disrespect to micbic or any Greek, but as a Turkish friend once said to me, "Without 300 years of Turkish occupation how on earth would the Greeks have ever learned to how to cook?":mischief:

Just a suggestion when it come's to the Norse Civ. It would be more historically accurate to part them to three civs, The Norwegians, The Swedes and The Danes. All of these countries could have a Control Scandinavia goal within a certain date. I could eventually suggest these three historical goals for each of them:
Danes:
- Control Scandinavia by 1400 AD
- Control North England by 1200 AD
- Have a fleet of 30 ships by 1500 AD (They were a Naval Power)
Swedes:
- Control Scandinavia by 1400 AD
- Control all territroy controlled by the Swedish Empire by 1600 AD (5 or 6 cities in Sweden, 3 in Finland and 2 in Balkan/Estland)
- Build/Get the Virgina Colony by 1600 AD (New Sweden were located in Delawere/Virginia)
Norway:
- Control Scandinavia by 1400 AD
- Control all the territory controlled by the Norwegian Empire by 1200 AD (5 Cities in Norway, 2 in Normandy, 1 on the Isle of Man, 1 in Scotland and 1 in Ireland)
- Have at least 10 7 Cities around the Norwegian and North Sea by 1000 AD

Tell me if you need any old, scandinavian City Names from Norway, as i am a Norwegian, and i hope you guys like my idea. If you are too long into the making of it, this could maybe be a later patch/add on to RFC Europe. Anyways, nice idea with this RFC Europe.

P.S.
If i could suggest Leaders (the early/late leader system from RFC Vanilla):
Norway:
- Harald Hardraada (early)(Got Norway up working as a real country)
- Håkon Håkonsson (late)(Norway reached it's greatest extenct under him)
Denmark
- Ragnar Lodbrok (early)
- Christian IV (late)(founded all the danish colonies and re-founded Christiania (Oslo))
Sweden
- Sverker I the Elder (early)(Built three Monasteries and Unified Sweden once again)
- Gustav II Adolf (late)(known as Gustavus the Great to many)

P.P.S.
I see you got sweden, but miss Norway in the Game.

Just a suggestion when it come's to the Norse Civ. It would be more historically accurate to part them to three civs, The Norwegians, The Swedes and The Danes. All of these countries could have a Control Scandinavia goal within a certain date. I could eventually suggest these three historical goals for each of them:
Danes:
- Control Scandinavia by 1400 AD
- Control North England by 1200 AD
- Have a fleet of 30 ships by 1500 AD (They were a Naval Power)
Swedes:
- Control Scandinavia by 1400 AD
- Control all territroy controlled by the Swedish Empire by 1600 AD (5 or 6 cities in Sweden, 3 in Finland and 2 in Balkan/Estland)
- Build/Get the Virgina Colony by 1600 AD (New Sweden were located in Delawere/Virginia)
Norway:
- Control Scandinavia by 1400 AD
- Control all the territory controlled by the Norwegian Empire by 1200 AD (5 Cities in Norway, 2 in Normandy, 1 on the Isle of Man, 1 in Scotland and 1 in Ireland)
- Have at least 10 7 Cities around the Norwegian and North Sea by 1000 AD

Tell me if you need any old, scandinavian City Names from Norway, as i am a Norwegian, and i hope you guys like my idea. If you are too long into the making of it, this could maybe be a later patch/add on to RFC Europe. Anyways, nice idea with this RFC Europe.

P.S.
If i could suggest Leaders (the early/late leader system from RFC Vanilla):
Norway:
- Harald Hardraada (early)(Got Norway up working as a real country)
- Håkon Håkonsson (late)(Norway reached it's greatest extenct under him)
Denmark
- Ragnar Lodbrok (early)
- Christian IV (late)(founded all the danish colonies and re-founded Christiania (Oslo))
Sweden
- Sverker I the Elder (early)(Built three Monasteries and Unified Sweden once again)
- Gustav II Adolf (late)(known as Gustavus the Great to many)

P.P.S.
I see you got sweden, but miss Norway in the Game.

Or i have a better idea. Make the Norse get a random starting location so i have a 50% chance of founding in their original place, and 50% chance to found Nidaros in Norway. Also, this could be vital for the civs name, eventually, if it starts in Norway, it will be Kingdom of Norway before the Kalmar Union, and if it founds in Denmark, it will be Kingdom of Denmark, before the Kalmar Union also replaces that name. The Leader..., may i suggest Cnut the Great instead of Ragnar or Sweyn?

While that would be a more accurate way of handling Scandinavia, we aren't adding any more civs. I'm also not sure how we would do a random start, if such a thing were possible.


In order to represent the dual Danish/Norwegian nature of the 'Norse' (and there was some debate over which should dominate), we had Tonsberg flip shortly after spawn, to give them a foothold in Scandinavia proper. There are a handful of good city sites in Norway and many good sites in Sweden; ideally, the AI Norse will expand to fill both, while the human player will attempt to expand into historically conquered/settled territory in order to complete the UHV goal.

Thanks for your suggestions. I do wonder if Cnut or Harald Hardrada might be a better leader than Ragnar.

Thanks for your suggestions. I do wonder if Cnut or Harald Hardrada might be a better leader than Ragnar.

Currently we have Harald Hardrada as the Norse leader.

As one of the original so-called "authors of this mod", I can assure you that no particularly "Greek" influence was intended at any time. So, I agree, that Greece should have absolutely no place in this mod as it ends in 1800.
With no disrespect to micbic or any Greek, but as a Turkish friend once said to me, "Without 300 years of Turkish occupation how on earth would the Greeks have ever learned to how to cook?":mischief:

If you view my post more clearly, I talk about a possible respawn, since Greek (small and unsuccessful) revolts started before 1800, and same goes with Bulgaria (should respawn at Sofia) and or Arabia (should respawn with Cairo as capital, and as Egypt)

Actually, the fact about the Turkish influence in our cuisine is kinda true.

May I also suggest that Sweden would spawn a little earlyer, around 1200 AD or something, as the swedish vikings actually existed at the same time as the other ones, even if they wont have the same UU as the Norse.
But when it come's to the Norse names, i think these names would fit (short description in () as it would fit then):
Norse Tribes (Norseland) 770 AD -> Norse Kingdoms (Norseland) 800 AD -> Union of Kalmar (Kalmar Union) 1400 AD -> Kingdom of Denmark-Norway (Denmark-Norway) 1500 AD

I must say the end at 1800 fits pretty well, as Norway became a liberate country in 1814 (in union with sweden thought).

But may I also suggest an extra territory that sweden should hold to it's control victory: Trondelag, as it were under swedish control until traded back top denmark to end a war that were compleatly going in Swedens Favor. This could be control 1 city in Trondelag, and the only city founded there could be Nidaros with the later names of Trondhjem (Under Denmark) and Trondheim (Under Sweden). If you think Nidaros is to far north, then Røros would be the ideal city in Trondelag.

Hope you guys isn't getting tired of my bad ideas by now :)

On the subject of the Norse I played them a little while ago going for the UHV and noticed that their first UHV ends at 1100.
Now any one who favors historical accuracy or likes to settle where there's better stability will favor for the France critera the Normandy area. However this area flips to the English at 1066 so it is not wise to settle there for the UHV.
Now, it is historically accurate that this area should be included in England's flip zone since William the Conquerer was a Norseman, so I propose to move the the finish date of this UHV to 1050. This would also mean that conquering York for the UHV condition will be an option, so the removal of 50 years from the time you can complete this UHV doesn't make it too hard.

[QUOTE=Squirrelloid;6130707]This thread is for discussing Civs in Rhye's of Europe. For the moment, we're still hammering out a Civ list. I will try to update this page 1/page of discussion to keep it current. Once this list is semi-finalized discussion about UUs, UBs, and UHVs can commence.

Current Civ List:
Western Europe (4)
Kingdom of Neustria (500 AD) -> West Francia (840 AD) -> France (990 AD)
England (500 AD) -> Great Britain (1700 AD or by cities held?)
Netherlands (1050 AD)
Burgundy (500 AD)

Iberian Peninsula (3)
Kingdom of Asturias (720 AD) -> Leon (920 AD) -> Crown of Castile (1230 AD)
-> Empire of Spain (1520 AD)
Portugal (1100 AD)
Al-Andalus (700 AD)

North & Central Europe (5)
Norse: Danes (500 AD) -> Calmar (?) -> Sweden (?)
Kingdom of Austrasia (500 AD) -> East Francia (840 AD) -> Kingdom of Germany
(920 AD) -> Germanic States (1260 AD)
Lechia (970 AD) -> Poland (???) -> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1570 AD)
Austria/House of Habsburg (1160 AD or 1280 AD) and at 1850 autrian-hungarian empire if austria conquer hungary and bohemia (prague)
Old Swiss Confederacy (1290 AD) -> Switzerland (1650 AD?)

Eastern Europe (6)
Eastern Roman Empire (500 AD)
Kievan Rus (860 AD) -> Principality of Chernigov (1080 AD) -> Zaporozhian
Host? (1650 AD) -> Russian Empire (By Cities Held)
Vladimir-Suzdal (1090 AD) -> Grand Duchy of Moscow (1320 AD) -> Tsardom of
Russia (1547 AD) -> Russian Empire (By cities held)
Magyars (900 AD) -> Kingdom of Hungary (1000 AD)
Ottoman Empire (1300 AD)
Umayyad Caliphate (660 AD) -> Abbasid Caliphate (750 AD) -> Fatimid
Caliphate (970 AD) -> Ayyubid Dynasty (1170 AD) -> Mamluk Sultanate (
1250 AD)

Italy (3)
Papal States (500 AD)
Republic of Venetia (800 AD)
Republic of Genoa (1000 AD)

Additional Candidates:
Kingdom of Sicily (1000 AD)

Total: 21 + (1) independents, room for 1 more

Cities Belonging to Independents: not complete
*Novgorod
*Dublin
*Belfast
*Edinburough
*Gdansk
*Firenze/Florence (Italy)
*Milan (Italy)
*Burdigala -> Bordeaux (Occitania)
*Tolosa (Occitania)
*Massilia/Marseilles
*Narbo -> Narbonne or Barcino -> Barcelona
*Smolensk (Russia)
*Halicz/Halych (Galicia)
*Konigsberg or Memel? Reval?

Input most definitely appreciated.

Other serious proposals on table:
* Normans (replace Kingdom of Sicily, start with armies in Normandy and S. Italy)?
* Something where Prussia is? (Teutonic Order -> Prussia?) yes, but could be more like these teutonic order-> prussia -> brandenburg -> kingdom of prussia -> german empire
* Split Norse into Sweden and Denmark?

Note: HRE is not a civ (and we have civs for Germany and Austria) but a title which can be earned in game, possibly awarded by the AP.

There are numerous notes in the RoE Development Thread on page 4 regarding countries included in the list.

Thoughts or comments appreciated. Also mention if you *like* something or the list as a whole. Keep in mind that our estimate on the number of civs we can have is ~23, including Independent. (If you have suggestions for civ name transitions, please make them. I don't pretend to know your country's history better than you do).

Something else to keep in mind is dynamic names and name transition dates are less important right now than the content of the list as a whole. Ie, if you want to read Austrasia -> East Francia -> German Kingdom... as "Germany", that's fine for now. (It just seems pointless to lose all that data and list it without it).[Austria/House of Habsburg (1160 AD or 1280 AD) and at 1850 autrian-hungarian empire if austria conquer hungary and bohemia (prague)
* Something where Prussia is? (Teutonic Order -> Prussia?) yes, but could be more like these teutonic order-> prussia -> brandenburg -> kingdom of prussia -> german empire/QUOTE]

netherland should start at war with spain

Welcome!
As you might not know, the mod has progressed much since that 2year old post, so this is not the current civ list
To your point, Nederland may start at war with any of Spain, France, Burgundy or HRE.

Welcome!
As you might not know, the mod has progressed much since that 2year old post, so this is not the current civ list
To your point, Nederland may start at war with any of Spain, France, Burgundy or HRE.

Like you said, he's quoting from the first post of this thread which is now on it's 99th. page and 1970'th. post. This really has got to be the world record of thread-bumping or at least post-bumping. Amazing!:lol:

Like you said, he's quoting from the first post of this thread which is now on it's 99th. page and 1970'th. post. This really has got to be the world record of thread-bumping or at least post-bumping. Amazing!:lol:

Even 2 thread's (who are more than a year old) in 1 week are bumped up. I think that's a record too.:lol:

Luckily this is not as bad as the guy who joined, bumped 20 threads of over 2 months old within an hour, made 400 posts in 6 days and left...:mischief:

You are being too harsh to him. The fact he made 400 posts means he contributed quite much (if you mean whom I think you do).

Have-a-nice-day-man.

Thanks! :p

Has anyone played Poland lately? I'll probably try to do a game shooting for their UHVs, but it would be good to have a second opinion. Under the AI they typically become too powerful, so my default opinion is that they should be weakened.

I haven't played them, but I have been in several close races with them to 3/3 UHVs, most recently with England.

Has anyone played Poland lately? I'll probably try to do a game shooting for their UHVs, but it would be good to have a second opinion. Under the AI they typically become too powerful, so my default opinion is that they should be weakened.

I've found the 1st. Polish UHV very difficult for the human player as it's hard to beat the Arab, Byzantine and Russian population in time, even though the AI sometimes gets it. Funny that the Arabs don't seem to count for the Hungarian UHV as I've had the largest territory in Europe except for the Arabs and it still counted. See my latest Hungary game on the Bugs thread where I've reported several UHV problems.

Anyway, I will attempt a bit tweaking on Poland, and post a 'before and after' in an hour or so.

I'm going to respond to your post here.

And as said in the Civ Discussion thread , here is the before-and-after (t)weaking Poland.
The result was 14 cities v 10, but may the sample is not enough.

Also included are some other screenies

1. Kinda nice is the Bavarian variant occuring when the barbs raze Frankfurt after Augsburg flips. (tho kinda sad that didnt last for more that 30 turns :cry: )
3. I hope that Burgundy looks more realistic.
4. Devoted to Edelbroy (that guy who sued for playable and indy Aragon)

Gamewise: Germany is strong if survives, Arabia and Cordoba collapsed in both cases. I think Kiev survived in the first game.

What parameters did you try changing?

I'd like to outline the "story" of Poland. Bear with me -- it's not a bit of history I'm very familiar with. I'm just thinking out loud.

970 - 1140: A relatively large Poland is established. Capitol gets moved to Krakow.
1140 - 1320: Internal divisions fragment Poland. Conflicts with neighbors (especially the Teutonic Order) and attacks by Tartars/Mongols are serious threats.
1320 - 1700: Re-establishment of a large Poland through conquest and union with Lithuania. Peak reached around 1500. Establishment of folwarks. Battles with Teutonic Order, Turks, and Moscow. Golden Age of Poland. Warsaw becomes capitol in 1600.
1700 - 1800: Decline and partition by neighbors, particularly Sweden, Germany (Prussia), Austria and Moscow.

Now, our UHVs are:
Be the most populous country in Europe in 1540AD.
Never lose a city before 1600AD.
Be the Catholic nation with most Faith Points in 1730AD.

These are all later objectives, leaving one rather directionless at the start. That's not necessarily bad -- it's okay to have some Civs like that. The only battles forced upon you are probably with a few Mongols who make it that far. The neighbors aren't likely to pose much of a threat -- Moscow's just too far away, and the Swedish AI certainly isn't going to launch a worthwhile amphibious attack. That leaves Germany and Austria. If they were strengthened it might help. Otherwise there's probably enough space for you to become the largest Civ quite peacefully while building up your faith points.

We can't (typically) model the 1140-1320 period of division very well. We can do external shocks (typically barbarians or new civs), but this was mostly an internal affair. Fine, but if Poland can reach the historically appropriate size by 1150 (which it basically can, starting out with a flipped city and three settlers), then it's just going to keep growing. The "Never lose a city" condition is a useful check on the human. If we spawn some Tartars near the eastern border with Poland, that could force you not to over-expand. Do the current Mongols ever get close enough to really threaten Poland?

Possible ideas:

Move Polish start to 1320ish.
Use RFCEBalance to weaken Poland generically.
Start Poland with less tech/troops.
Increase Barbarian pressure
Strengthen neighbors.

I'm not totally sure moving thier start date back is going to help decline thier power(they could probably still get to the height they normally do).

Possible ideas:

Move Polish start to 1320ish.
Use RFCEBalance to weaken Poland generically.
Start Poland with less tech/troops.
Increase Barbarian pressure
Strengthen neighbors.

The second one: Moved Population growth from 100 to 140 and also increased a bit unit building (to 150)

If it is okay, I will post the experimental changes to the SVN (along with a bit of city name map changes, i.e ues, oes)

I'm not totally sure moving thier start date back is going to help decline thier power(they could probably still get to the height they normally do).

Well, if you start them weaker they don't have as much time to catch up. You're probably right though, it doesn't seem like the right solution.

I haven't really played Poland in Alpha8, I'll try again when St.Lucifer's map/spawns are implemented. In my Alpha7 game the easy mode resulted simply from the fact that Poland had no opponents. Germany used to be extremely weak, and Kiev always collapsed (I mean, this happened across all my games). Not sure if barbs changed in a8, but I never saw any Mongols in a7, except when taking almost defenseless Kievan cities that Mongols settled in. This isn't exactly bad as Mongols kind of won a battle and never came back. The real threat to Poland should be the Teutonic Order, but I'm not sure how to reflect that with it being a corp.

Moving the start date makes no sense IMO, there's a clear birth date that is reflected in the mod atm. Spain was no less fragmented and you have it as a single state from the beginning. Less techs / slower research makes sense, however, as compared to Western Europe, Poland and even more so Lithuania & Ruthenia were rather backwards in science and economics, at least until late middle ages (but even then, the economy was too dependent on agriculture).

One thing I really need to stress is that the Polish UU, Heavy Hussar, is a Renaissance unit, 16-18th c. (atm Heavy Hussars appear around 12th c.). It really, really, really should replace Cuirassier, not Knight, despite it being a lancer-type unit (that was the deal about it, Husaria successfully used heavy armor & lances, generally obsolete in Europe, vs. pikes and muskets). If historicity isn't enough, it'd fit their late UHVs better as well.

Well, if you start them weaker they don't have as much time to catch up. You're probably right though, it doesn't seem like the right solution.

I think slowing their tech rate and making their unit build rate more costly might be the answer.

BTW Were you able to check my Hungary saved game on the Bugs thread? The UHV is definitely not working properly.

Okay, I played Poland up through 1450. Enough to know that the first UHV is easy, I was the largest population by a long shot already. Too many resources, so my cities reached sizes 10+. A lot of very good land as well. Maybe some more (dense) forests would help slow things down. Hungary was very powerful in this game, but I had no trouble making peace with all my neighbors, and they had plenty of space so no reason to attack.

Tech was already a bit poor due to rapid expansion, but I was able to trade around and keep pretty modern. A couple mongols reached my borders, but overall they were a blessing because they killed Kiev and I was able to roll up most of those cities without a real fight. Black death should be more devastating of course.

micbic: feel free to post your balance changes to the SVN.

This is exactly what I said before, (and I think you guys are implementing this). There should be A LOT more dense forest or basically forest that cannot be cut down until the late game all over Northern Europe. This will slow down the originally backwards Germany and other North European nations (including I would say England). Then let them cut it down and it will bring about a production BOOM! and with this boom it will really make them powerful!

This is exactly what I said before, (and I think you guys are implementing this). There should be A LOT more dense forest or basically forest that cannot be cut down until the late game all over Northern Europe. This will slow down the originally backwards Germany and other North European nations (including I would say England). Then let them cut it down and it will bring about a production BOOM! and with this boom it will really make them powerful!

Like I said before, England was one of the least forested countries in Europe in the Middle Ages and it got worse and worse, there were shortages of timber well before late Middle Ages. The main stoppers of growth in Europe were things like lack of sanitation and overall poor health (which at the moment isn't reflected at all with all the surplus Health). People were literally shitting under themselves and throwing trash and excrements out of the window, fresh water was scarce as everything was polluted, drinking diluted ale/wine was necessary not to get sick. Life expectancy in the Muslim world was roughly twice as high as in Europe.

With regards to Poland, it certainly was more forested (according to our local sources, completely forested minus river valleys, much like the Baltic areas). This changed rapidly with German settlers pouring in during the 12-14th c. period.

Also mines & mills buildable over forests allow even production output per tile than BTS, and as a result any city next to forest/hills & forest/rivers can have very high production well before any forests can be cut (I never cut them, actually, they're too good).

Currently the tech which allows forest chopping (Plate Armor) already comes pretty late:


1000-1250
In the 11th century, people began to move outward into the wilderness, in what is known as the "great clearances". During the High Middle Ages, forests and marshes were cleared and cultivated. At the same time, during the Ostsiedlung, Germans settled east of the Elbe and Saale rivers, regions largely inhabited by Polabian Slavs. Crusaders expanded to the Crusader states, parts of the Iberian Peninsula were reconquered from the Moors, and the Normans colonized southern Italy. These movements and conquests are part of larger pattern of population expansion and resettlement that occurred in Europe at this time.[1]

Source: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_demography#1000-1250)


For reference Austria (1160 AD) doesn't start with Plate Armor -- Turkey does at 1300 AD. I'm unwilling to push this back anymore, though a few more starting woodlands could be fine. Dense forests, of course, don't get chopped until right at the end of the game.

I agree with embryodead; we really need more un-health to limit city size -- and a really devastating black death to cut Europe back to size. I'll work on the latter.

I wasn't sure on which it would be nice to post this.

As you have noticed, work related duties have put me away from this mod for the time being. I promise to be back to speed after thanksgiving. That is, I will be posting, but will not be able to code until after Nov 27.

Although yes you are right about the sanitation issue, you have to remember though that, the geography of Northern Europe really hindered them, in the sense that they had miles and miles of rich woodland that was never cut down to use for farming, while in the Middle East this farmland had been used again and again which had contributed to a surplus of food, but soon right around the rise of the Ottomans (actually I believe a bit before), all this farmland in the Middle East turned to dust due to overuse because of thousands of years of use. While in Europe during the Renaissance they had there own agricultural revolution which jump-started the economy there. For the first time huge amounts of forest were being cut down and turned into farmland which meant two things, first an increase in food surplus (more food = health) and two, a huge increase in production which meant that these upstart nations of Europe started blasting into progress. Therefore I was saying that first off, there should be a lot more "Dense Forest" which cannot be cut down and only gives one hammer or one food. This will hinder Europe nations until a certain date (which we can decide on later), then the games geography will shift (think of RFC) making some of the Middle Easts fertile plains into desert, but in Europe the disappearance of dense forest into fertile land OR just plain forest will begin a production boom. This will represent the shifting of power from the Middle East to Europe, (excluding the Ottoman Empire which was still the main power for couple hundred more years).
This is an actual theory (and a very credited one) onto why Europe overtook hundreds of years of Muslim dominance, created by a group of Historians. If you want my source I can give you one, or I'm pretty sure you can look it up on Google. Just goes to show how much of an impact geography can have on World History;)

Okay, I just had to do this. Here are the European and Middle Eastern civilizations in Age of Empires II. I'd like to know how they're doing in the current build of RFCE, but I'll make my own commentary as well.

-The Celts (represented by independents?)
-The Britons (English)
-The Franks (French)
-The Spanish
-The Huns (okay this mod starts a bit too late for them, honestly dunno why they're in AoEII anyways as they fell before West Rome did)
-The Goths (represented by independents?)
-The Teutons (Germans?)
-The Vikings
-The Byzantines (their buildings actually have middle eastern graphics in the game for some reason)
-The (Sassanid?) Persians
-The Saracens (Arabs)
-The Turks

Okay, I just had to do this. Here are the European and Middle Eastern civilizations in Age of Empires II. I'd like to know how they're doing in the current build of RFCE, but I'll make my own commentary as well.

-The Celts (represented by independents?)
-The Britons (English)
-The Franks (French)
-The Spanish
-The Huns (okay this mod starts a bit too late for them, honestly dunno why they're in AoEII anyways as they fell before West Rome did)
-The Goths (represented by independents?)
-The Teutons (Germans?)
-The Vikings
-The Byzantines (their buildings actually have middle eastern graphics in the game for some reason)
-The (Sassanid?) Persians
-The Saracens (Arabs)
-The Turks

Have you downloaded the Alpha8 version of RFC Europe and played it? That should answer all your questions.:)

I noticed that the unique unit for Kingdom of Sweden has been changed. I think this is very unfortunate since the Karolins are only basic infantry <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroleans> and they fought at the end of the Sweden greatness era, so basicly they weren't too succesful.

Notice the part in wikipedia: "Thus, in the latter half of the 17:th century, the major difference between the Swedish army and those common on the continent was the relative lack of firepower and the use of pikes and sabers." So they were everything but a fiered elite military unit! Notice also that Karolins mainly lost their battles.

I recommend that somebody involved in making this mod would reinstall Hakkapeliitta as the UU of Kingdom of Sweden.

The Hakkapeliittas were an elite unit that spread fear in northern Europe, for example, during the Thirty Years' War, which shaped the greatness of Sweden for that Era. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakkapeliitta> And most importantly they were formed by King Gustavus Adolphus, the man who made Sweden a superpower.

Futhermore, the Hakkapeliittas were involved in many great battles. For example: Breitenfeld in 1631, Lech in 1632, Lützen in 1632, Leipzig in 1642, Jankau in 1645, Lens in 1648 and they fought also with King Karl X Gustav when Sweden conquered Skaneland in 1658. As you can see the timeline also fits with the mod's timeline.

It is also fact that Northern Germans priests prayed even until late 19th century that lord should spare them from famine, plague and Hakkapeliittas ("A horribile Haccapaelitorum agmine libera nos, Domine", "O Lord, deliver us from the terrible army of the Haccapelites"). I rest my case!

Hey Jusos2108:

Welcome to the forums, and thanks for your comments. Is there an add-on Swedish civilization available for download that currently uses Hakkapeliitta as the UU? We created out Sweden from scratch, so it wasn't that we discarded the Hakkapeliitta, but that it was never in.

The only problem I have is that we have a lot of UU which are cavalry, and we're trying to branch out and create a bit more diversity in this regard. Still, we can consider your request, especially if there is good art out there. If you have played our mod, can you suggest details for which unit the Hakkapeliitta should replace and what it's special bonus should be?

May I suggest a light artillery / regimental cannon / horse artillery UU for Sweden? The artillery reforms were the defining characteristic of Gustavus' army (the massed cavalry charge would come later).

May I suggest a light artillery / regimental cannon / horse artillery UU for Sweden? The artillery reforms were the defining characteristic of Gustavus' army (the massed cavalry charge would come later).

The first real horse artillery was introduced by Frederick the Great in 1759 (acc. to Wiki) but didn't develop in regular use until the 1770's. Giving Sweden such a late UU makes little sense as the mod ends in 1800 and the human player at least should have already won a UHV long before that.:)

Hey Jusos2108:

Welcome to the forums, and thanks for your comments. Is there an add-on Swedish civilization available for download that currently uses Hakkapeliitta as the UU? We created out Sweden from scratch, so it wasn't that we discarded the Hakkapeliitta, but that it was never in.

The only problem I have is that we have a lot of UU which are cavalry, and we're trying to branch out and create a bit more diversity in this regard. Still, we can consider your request, especially if there is good art out there. If you have played our mod, can you suggest details for which unit the Hakkapeliitta should replace and what it's special bonus should be?

Thank you. I read it on this page <http://rhye.civfanatics.net/wiki/index.php?title=Rhye%27s_and_Fall_of_Civilization: _Europe_civilizations> quite a while ago. I guess somebody changed it long time ago.

Anyway, I played your mod (good work) for first time today and would use pistoliero (maybe just put some yellow in the colors so it would look swedish) as base unit for Hakkapeliitta, since it is said about them that they used pistols and swords as weapons and that they shot their pistols first at close range (2 first strikes fits the picture) and then used swords.

The bonus could be plus 1 strenght, since they were quite close to heavy cavalry. It is said about them that they could battle quite evenly against Heavy Cuirassiers and that they used horses as weapon to trample infantry. Therefore, the bonus/es could be +1 strenght, starts with shock/formation/(or the 25% bonus against pike infantry)

Sources: Parker, Geoffrey edit. The Cambridge History of Warfare. New York: The Cambridge University Press, 2005. Page 159. and wikipedia

Just goes to show how much of an impact geography can have on World History

Just one variable in many