Guys, I've taken the liberty of creating a new thread for this - put any bugs, feedback on games, and suggestions on starting techs and units in this thread. Thanks for your help!

This mod starts after the barbarian invasions in the Roman Empire, but the barbarians didn't razed all the cities. Wouldn't it be better to place a couple of Roman Cities on the map as Indipendents that would flip to upcoming nations similar to the French, German and Spain spawn in RFC. This way, new civs would start with a couple of cities and less underground code penalties could be given to old civs.

As for the Dutch. They were a nation that declared independence. They didn't found new cities. I think they should start with a city (or cities) that has been build by the Independents, Germans, Burgundians or Spain. Again, they don't have to start from scratch and need less new civ bonuses. I think the same should be done for Venezia and Genoa.

This could be the starting situation with all the civs that we don't have as independents. Maybe Londinium should be added.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b5/Eastrome480AD.JPG/800px-Eastrome480AD.JPG

I agree with you about starting cities but the map is not finalised yet. And shouldn't this be on the discussion thread? This one is for test reports.:)

Note to everyone: as of right now, the only nation that have been discussed for starting techs are Burgundy trough Spain, no one else has adequate starting techs. Use the WB.

Only the Byzantines start with semi-adequate staring units, everyone else starts with a settler or two and some warriors. Most nations would also start with some missionaries. Use the WB for now.

There are some stability issues still. I am working on understanding all of the specific dynamics, it might take some time.

The Hungarian UB would have special effect, but it is not coded yet ( I am not sure how it would be documented, probably separate in the Civilopedia).

Independent cities would be eventually added in most of Europe. Rome right now starts independent, but in distant future that would be replaced by the Papal State.

Enjoy the work so far.

This mod starts after the barbarian invasions in the Roman Empire, but the barbarians didn't razed all the cities. Wouldn't it be better to place a couple of Roman Cities on the map as Indipendents that would flip to upcoming nations similar to the French, German and Spain spawn in RFC. This way, new civs would start with a couple of cities and less underground code penalties could be given to old civs.

As for the Dutch. They were a nation that declared independence. They didn't found new cities. I think they should start with a city (or cities) that has been build by the Independents, Germans, Burgundians or Spain. Again, they don't have to start from scratch and need less new civ bonuses. I think the same should be done for Venezia and Genoa.

This could be the starting situation with all the civs that we don't have as independents. Maybe Londinium should be added.


There's a map attached to the wiki which shows a proposed list of independent cities. It doesn't have names attached, but you can probably figure them out from the placements. It's not a finalized map, but we're going to use some variant of it - and different cities will appear at different times, just as Sur, Samarkand, and the rest appear on the RFC map. In some cases, civs will probably be working primarily from a map full of independents (France, Spain); in others, they'll be building their own (Hungary, Poland, etc.)

Just a couple of balance comments on having sat through the long wait time for the Netherlands to spawn:

1. Way, way, way too many civs collapse, including many that hadn't done anything obvious to induce their demise. Arabia, Bulgaria, Kiev, Germany, Burgundy, France, Cordoba and Spain were all gone by the time the Netherlands spawned. Stability needs to be boosted considerably.

2. Catholicism doesn't spread much. Europe is overwhelmingly Orthodox with some pockets of Islam outside of ex-Arabia. Catholicism exists only in Genoa, Venice and Venetian-controlled Rome. This is probably because the Byzantines tend to spam Orthodox missionaries while independent Rome doesn't do the same with Catholic missionaries (obviously). Additionally, the large number of Orthodox Byzantine cities tend to overwhelm the single Catholic Rome in terms of the odds of a religion spreading to a new city. The spread rate of Catholicism should be massively increased to make up for this.

Tried Burgundy. France declared for no good reason, then collapsed when I razed a city defended by warriors. Everybody should start with Archers I think. When Germany declared for Frieburg on spawn, my stability dropped badly and Frieburg went independent, and I collapsed a bit later. Not sure if anything in the mod was amiss or not.

Tried Venice, built a few cities, got bored. Get declared on by Poland for no good reason, although I did have Hungary as a vassal.

* New civs vassalize to existing ones too readily. Civs were vassalizing and un-vassalizing a lot. That could have been OK but the reasons didn't seem realistic.
* the papal state behavior was weird, Venice started at war with it. It felt odd not having it as a diplomatic player. Also it appeared to have no metal, so it was building just cats and archers. In general the AI seems to do odd things with catapults when it has no metal. Maybe Axemen and Spearmen could be built without metal.
* the tech tree is obviously still skeletal, so no comment yet, except that lumber mills are too powerful

Okay, I played France until about 1200s.

The tech rate is a crawl. This may be because there is no way to open borders or trade techs early on (or maybe at all?).

France's land area around Paris seems sparse. It has no special resouces in its big cross, but there does just seem to be fewer resources in general as compared to RFC, so this may be intended, and alright given that there's a lot more land area.

Catholicism does not spread.

Civic options need to be spread around. The first full tier of civic options seem to all be at the Feudalism tech. This took me as France about 200 turns to even get to. I probably could have done it in 100 if I went straight for it, but I'd like to see civic options much sooner.

Independent cities! I saw England spawn, and I saw their spawn area envelop Brittany, but of course, I didn't put a city there, so nothing flipped. Indy cities will help the tech rate too.

There were a few declarations of war by Cordoba and Venice, but I never once saw an enemy troop. The AI needs to be tweaked on their wars.

Thanks for the input:

Stability is being tweaked right now, hopefully something meaningful would be worked out soon. I still have to understand the empire size dynamics.

Catholicism problem could be solved with Catholic Missionaries for France, Burgundy, Venice, Spain and maybe a few other.

The somewhat "strange" wars are just a feature of RFC, every now and then the AI is forced into war.

Tech cost is right now arbitrary and yes civic options would have to be spread more evenly.

We should add the option for Open Borders, that would help trade and stability.

Played as Hungary, one in Viceroy and one in Monarch, and have to make some comments

1) When you wanna talk to a civ, you can trade only with those having a state religion.
2) I don't know why, but Burgundy collapses very easily. BTW, collapses shouldn't be so sharp, eg the most away cities first, just to give a notice that collapse comes
3) Spanish nations are the strongest, except Byzantium. What surprised me is that they didn't be in war at no case whatsoever
4) Byzantium is not that invincible whatsoever. At a point, it was vassalized by Arabia. Then Arabia collapsed.
5) Bulgaria is kinda strong too. Until it collapsed, of course
6) Kievan Rus always becomes a Bulgarian vassal
7) BTW, Russian and Kievan settler maps need much work
8) Tech trading... (map trading is however enabled)
9) Vassalization is easier than it should. In a case, Spain had 3 vassals, including Muscowy
10) I don't think Hungarian core was at nowaday Serbia, perhaps should be moved 2-3 tiles north.

Hoping stability, open borders and tech rate problems are soon solved

Feel free to add in resources to the map - the resource placement in the current version isn't close to a finished product. We've got more resources to add to the mod, so I hadn't done a full update yet. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Played as Hungary, one in Viceroy and one in Monarch, and have to make some comments

10) I don't think Hungarian core was at nowaday Serbia, perhaps should be moved 2-3 tiles north.


Hungarian code touches only a small part of modern Serbia. Northern part of modern Serbia was heavily contested between Bulgaria and Hungary in the Middle Ages with Belgrade changing hand several times. The first Serbian country (Tzar Stephan Dushan 14 Century) was somewhat to the south, approximately where Kosovo is today.

I had a go as venice on monarch but was destroyed 20 turns in by an independant army from greece, my 4 warriors weren't enough to defend against 2 catapults, a pikeman and a heavy crossbow...

I had a go as venice on monarch but was destroyed 20 turns in by an independant army from greece, my 4 warriors weren't enough to defend against 2 catapults, a pikeman and a heavy crossbow...

Use WB to give yourself more units. Staring units are not there yet.

paris needs some boni, probably cows and and grains within its workable tile range. so far, this city has none. burgundy usually declares war on the franks, greatly overexpands and collapses.

Whats with all the ice in England? In the north of Scotland I could understand some tundra, but not in Wales!

Whats with all the ice in England? In the north of Scotland I could understand some tundra, but not in Wales!
Try to guess... :rolleyes:



It's going to be a new type of terrain just as the jungles are going to be marshes...

Whats with all the ice in England? In the north of Scotland I could understand some tundra, but not in Wales!

I know. Its just supposed to be placeholders for moorland if we ever find the art for it. Just use Worldbuilder and grass all the ice over. It'll be fine. I live 10 miles from Bodmin Moor in Cornwall and it doesn't look like the Arctic here at all, I assure you.:lol:

paris needs some boni, probably cows and and grains within its workable tile range. so far, this city has none. burgundy usually declares war on the franks, greatly overexpands and collapses.

Go ahead and put them in; they'll be there in the finished version.


This goes for any resources - if there's something which is glaringly missing, add it.

Jessiecat's solution to the icy British isles is also recommended.

Sounds like an interesting mod. Have the hidden diplo modifiers been done yet? (e.g. Arabia and Byzantines should be at opposite ends, while after the 1100ADs all Catholics should be against Orthodoxes; traditional rivalries like Burgundy and the French crown)

due to lack of open borders and tech trading (probably), the empires are dying like flies. in 1550 it was only 3 empires left, with me (england) collapsing, (due to poor economy, maybe i overexpanded a bit, and i m not supposed to colonize ireland and scotland - which i turned to tundra)...

needless to say, if netherlands hadnt spawned it would only ve been 2 empires...

btw, where is madrid?

I was thinking about doing UHVs, but I guess I should look at stability next. One of the problems is that there is no whip and Rhye has implemented huge stability penalty for large cities. Also, it turns out that economy depends far more on food than on commerce and not at all on gold (i.e. merchants have virtually no effect)

due to lack of open borders and tech trading (probably), the empires are dying like flies. in 1550 it was only 3 empires left, with me (england) collapsing, (due to poor economy, maybe i overexpanded a bit, and i m not supposed to colonize ireland and scotland - which i turned to tundra)...

needless to say, if netherlands hadnt spawned it would only ve been 2 empires...

btw, where is madrid?

Madrid became the capitol of Spain in 1561. Previously it was Toledo. Why would you even want Madrid?

I agree with you about large empires. In all my test games I have collapsed once I reached 8 cities or more. Instability seems mostly linked to size of empire and lack of open borders. City maintenance costs are crippling when its so hard to generate any wealth.

in england i turned everything to cottages (except for ressources of course) and still...i was at a 10-20% research usually...
i think i ll edit the courthouse building to do 75 percent maintenance cut as default, and 90 for germany. either way, is there some way to manually and foolproofly (if this adverb exists) alter some files to make stability hits on economy less...pervasive

I just tried the Byzantines on Monarch. Maintenance costs are absolutely devastating; I had over -100 gold/turn running 0% science from the very beginning of the game, lost every unit but a single Archer in each city to desertions, and could not escape from the economic collapse. Some of this might be intended to allow the Arabs and Bulgarians to actually be able to penetrate Byzantium, but it's a serious problem nonetheless.

One solution would be the greatly reduce number-of-cities maintenance costs. Since the map is designed for most civs to have a lot more cities than would be typical in a standard game of Civ4 or of RFC, cutting number-of-cities maintenance to a quarter of its current value would not be unreasonable. City distance maintenance could also be cut by half given how far away from the capital a lot of the cities are likely to be. That would allow the Byzantines to at least break even on 0% science from the beginning of the game and maybe to actually run some science once Tyre and Jerusalem flip.

France (and possibly other civs) seems to have the Incan UP: Mountains are producing 2 food, and one hammer.

Ypu are actually right. Noticed that when playing as Burgundy.

New version is up. Visit the Civ Discussion tread for details.

Okay, I played Arabia until around 900 with the Nov 10th version.

I rapidly conquered Anatolia all the way through Constantinople, and only lost a few troops. The Byzantines were largely using archers to defend, but Constantinople had a castle with a long bowmen, so I lost a few troops there. Afterwords they collapsed, and I claimed their African cities.

Around 750 I started to have stability problems, and by 850 I had cities declaring independence. I only had one foreign contact: The Bulgars, who wouldn't give me open borders (they were orthodox, and I was Islamic).

So I think expansion stability for Arabia could be tweaked upwards, especially since they have a huge land area on the RFC-Europe map, and their UHVs are expansion related. I had a 14 cities by just expanding relatively historically through Anatolia + Constantinople and N. Africa. All my other stability categories were 3 stars, Expansion was 2 stars and dropping. Which reminds me, at least for testing purposes, you should use let us see specific stability numbers on the F2-economy screen.

There should be a at least one more independent city in N. Africa, maybe Tunis.

Okay, I played Arabia until around 900 with the Nov 10th version.

I rapidly conquered Anatolia all the way through Constantinople, and only lost a few troops. The Byzantines were largely using archers to defend, but Constantinople had a castle with a long bowmen, so I lost a few troops there. Afterwords they collapsed, and I claimed their African cities.

Around 750 I started to have stability problems, and by 850 I had cities declaring independence. I only had one foreign contact: The Bulgars, who wouldn't give me open borders (they were orthodox, and I was Islamic).

So I think expansion stability for Arabia could be tweaked upwards, especially since they have a huge land area on the RFC-Europe map, and their UHVs are expansion related. I had a 14 cities by just expanding relatively historically through Anatolia + Constantinople and N. Africa. All my other stability categories were 3 stars, Expansion was 2 stars and dropping. Which reminds me, at least for testing purposes, you should use let us see specific stability numbers on the F2-economy screen.

There should be a at least one more independent city in N. Africa, maybe Tunis.

I agree that stabilty for all civs above 12 cities should not be penalised.

Also about independents: There will be a lot added to N. Africa, Spain and France. Like Tunis, Alger, Oran, Fez, Tanger, Marrakesh etc. Tanger and Fez would flip to Cordoba at the start.

Had another try with Cordoba in the new version, Monarch difficulty. First UHV impossible. Cordoba can never grow big enough to match Constantinople. Had a long war with Spain, taking Toledo and Zaragoza from them. After making peace they rapidly took all the indys in a collapsed France and the Netherlands. Then they collapsed. Its now 1449 and I will collapse next turn due to 1 star economy. Started collapsing a few turns after Spain collapsed. Have saved the auto-save from 1440.

maybe the instability caused by collapsed neighbors should be toned down.

The independents... Seriously they have huge empires. A collapsed civ should be divided more between the independents, 'cause right now, they're kicking everybody's asses.
Do you see that huge Independent army? Do you see the huge Independent kingdoms?

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m312/korsvanloon/AAAHH.jpg

maybe the instability caused by collapsed neighbors should be toned down.

Ah. The neighbours. It's always the bloody neighbours.:lol:

BTW Did you notice the economy in my saved game? How could inflation make up nearly 50% of all expenses? I'm no economist but what's that all about anyway? Is it like German hyper-inflation in 1923?:confused:

Was it intended to have a mine NOT chop a forest? Whenever I make an improvement to a forested tile, the forest remains.

I'd like to know what major problems there are preventing a jolly good game with RFCE. I think that the collapse issue is a problem, and economy may need to be fixed(see jessiecat's post #34). Are fixing these problems the first priority in your to-do list? If they aren't, I think they should be, because even if some features are buggy, a stable game will get more test players than a game which you lose as Cordoba because a chain reaction of collapses starts in the Balkans.

I am working on stability, but let me tell you, the concept is "messed up". There are things in it that make little sense to me (i.e. penalizing large cities).

I am working on stability, but let me tell you, the concept is "messed up". There are things in it that make little sense to me (i.e. penalizing large cities).

I know this sounds counter-productive but there is a thread somewhere that describes how to disable stability in RFC. How about we do that and then reintroduce specific stability penalties as required. I agree with Hitti Litti. There's little point in playing a game that collapses due to factors beyond the player's control.

I think the main contribution on the tread that you mentioned is mine anyway. I know how to disable stability, but that is not the point here. I want to make it work right. There is some expansion problem that makes no sense to me, Arabia expands rapidly and then for about 50 turns stays stable in terms of Expansion. Then it suddenly (without building any cities), expansion drops to 2 stars. This happens shortly before 1000AD and that is the period that everyone describes how massive instability hits. It is not due to neighbors or chain reactions, there is something else.

Other than that, I believe I have fixed the Economy problems for now. I will try to work more on it today, but will probably have to wait until tomorrow.

I have an idea: publish a version that has stability disabled. Then we can play the version without stability and point out gameplay problems and problems with AI while you're fixing the oddities of stability. That way I think you'll be able to publish a beta version of RFCE earlier, and also you will get more testers as you'll have a playable test version out earlier.

Do we want to revisit the idea of having more than one independent civ, to prevent the massive accumulations of power that Cornelio's documented in that screenshot? RFC uses more than one independent in part to get around this issue, as independents build stuff, gain techs, etc, like any other civ.

We had initially talked about splitting the map into different types of independent - Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, etc - but decided against it due to loading times, right? Do the optimizations of the code that have been suggested make up for that difference? Is it viable or advisable to return to the idea of having multiple independents?

Played as Norse until 1200's on Nov 10 version. Leaving aside the previously mentioned stabilty issues, here are some observations.

1. At present I think the 1st UHV condition for the Norse is impossible due to the severe lack of production available. 3 cities in GB is too much without slavery IMO

2. I think there needs to be more Iron on the map- too few civs get access at the moment

3. Burgundy and Frankia have been at war constantly in every game ive played

4. V. powerful independent states need to be dealt with. I would agree with St. Lucifer in post 41

5. English map needs the changes Cornelio had made in the map thread

6. Some settler maps need work- Genoa found Cumae, Bulgaria founds Pathragarda

7. Too many civs are vassalizing straight after spawning- I guess this will change when starting techs and units are added to the game

8. Not tried Al-Andalus yet, but I cant see Cordoba ever becoming the biggest city for that UHV- esp. not with the city sites available to Kiev

9. Why is the forbidden palace in the Mod? Is that not in Beijing?

10. Norse have ended up Islamic in every game ive had. It spread to Aarhus in around 1000AD in my latest game

Playing my own Norse test game, i added some food and metals in the area, making the civ more productive.

My question is with the third condition. What constitutes a water tile? All the little lakes in Russia for instance?

Playing as the Norse, accomplished first 2 UHV conditions, yet didn't get a golden age.

I think I can some work in the Italian civs settler maps, just tell me how it is done, and that it does not need any sort of programming

Do we want to revisit the idea of having more than one independent civ, to prevent the massive accumulations of power that Cornelio's documented in that screenshot? RFC uses more than one independent in part to get around this issue, as independents build stuff, gain techs, etc, like any other civ.

We had initially talked about splitting the map into different types of independent - Celtic, Germanic, Slavic, etc - but decided against it due to loading times, right? Do the optimizations of the code that have been suggested make up for that difference? Is it viable or advisable to return to the idea of having multiple independents?

Nope, we decided against Slavic/Germanic independents because of concentration of power. Slavic Indeps can only be one nation, hence if an Eastern European nation collapses, it would simply become a single powerful independent nation. If two collapse they would both become one nation, it makes no sense.

We have simply independent1 and independents2 (two independent players), there is part of the code that shuffles cities around trying to ensure that one indy doesn't have many more cities than the other indy, but I guess with too many cities on the map, this may not work properly. We may add a third independent player (if it gets too much), but that would be for later since adding an independent player is actually harder than adding a playable nation.

I will think about it.

Playing as the Norse, accomplished first 2 UHV conditions, yet didn't get a golden age.

Currently you do not get GA from 2 UHVs, that would be fixed.

Also, to be honest, I don't know what constitutes water. It should be all of North Sea, Atlantic, Mediterranean, Aegean, Dalmatia, Black Sea and I am pretty sure the small part of Red Sea. That last one would probably have to be excluded.

I think I can some work in the Italian civs settler maps, just tell me how it is done, and that it does not need any sort of programming

Do you mean settlers map or city name map, can you code it you don't know how to code it. I think we are set on the maps for now, sedna17 has done a pretty good job on the maps.

Do you mean settlers map or city name map, can you code it you don't know how to code it. I think we are set on the maps for now, sedna17 has done a pretty good job on the maps.

City name maps:rolleyes:

Getting access to the Red Sea would require getting open borders with the Arabs, or being at war with them and landing troops.

I wanted my GA, so I opened WB gave myself 2 GP and the Arch :)

Related to the superpowerful independents, I played again last night as Genoa, and after avoiding an initial onslaught, later in the game I was quite literally surrounded by them, making trade and expansion of religion difficult. It leaves you with the only option to be to raze all the independent cities you can. Not quite sure what the solution is, perhaps just beefing up the stability of all the civs would help, in particular tuning down stability penalties for expansion.

New version is out: I just disabled stability for now. I will figure how to fix it and then I will post again. BtW on the old version (Nov 10) you can play reasonably well by using serfdom (lots of food) and trying to keep the cities from overgrowing (that really kills stability).

Have just been playing as Burgundy in the new version and I've noticed a fault. The first UHV condition is to control the Rhine valley in 1200AD. As you can see its 1203 and I clearly control all the river squares on both banks but it's telling me I have failed the first UHV. So what's up?

Control UHVs are based upon squares. I picked a rectangle that somewhat covered all of Rhine, but I guess I have covered something outside.

Either the city on the top left corner ( can't quite make out the name ) is part of the rectangle and messes things up or there is a more serious bug. Send me a savegame (around the turn you posted) and I will fix it.

Control UHVs are based upon squares. I picked a rectangle that somewhat covered all of Rhine, but I guess I have covered something outside.

Either the city on the top left corner ( can't quite make out the name ) is part of the rectangle and messes things up or there is a more serious bug. Send me a savegame (around the turn you posted) and I will fix it.

OK. Here is the auto-save, 1 turn before that. ie 1200AD. I think the problem lies with Brussels. Maybe the rectangle takes in the 2 tiles south of it. I've only just captured it and its cultural boundaries haven't expanded enough yet.

Only ownership of cities count, cultural borders do not.

What may I ask is the purpose of the Religious Prosecutor? I built one, but he doesnt seem to do anything (even when in foreign cities)

The prosecutor removes non-state religion from your own cities. Move him to a city and add a religion different from your own, then you should get an Icon that says "do prosecution" or something.

Ah, that makes sense. Of course I have no non-state religion, so nothing for the poor guy to do!

How do we trade techs? I also notice there is no currency or trade of gold.

I played Burgundy in the latest test version and I had a problem.

Germany spawned and claimed my city Mayence, I refused and attacked them and destroyed them in 1 turn. But after that Germany kept claiming my units. It had no cities or units left, I know for sure. So I ened up with no army and a germany with a strong army but no cities...

Another thing is, I think Germany should start with lets say: 4 axe or swordsmen. Because just 4 warriors are eaten like cake by Burgundy and France.

Stating units are not decided yet, also what you are describing is a typical RFC war for independence.

well I think that starting units and eventually techs are a high priority right now. Half of the posts in this thread are "starting units aren't decided yet". There really can't be any decent playtesting until starting units are set.

Ok.
I played RFC alot and it's not "typical". I know that when I refuse a city flip my units will flip to. But should they also flip to the civilization(in this case the Germans) if the civilization is already destroyed..?

Ok.
I played RFC alot and it's not "typical". I know that when I refuse a city flip my units will flip to. But should they also flip to the civilization(in this case the Germans) if the civilization is already destroyed..?

Happens all the time, if you refuse a flip on spawn, you are fighting a war that you cannot win. I tried it couple of times with Rome, does not work. Allow for the flip and attack couple of turns later, thus fighting a regular war.

well I think that starting units and eventually techs are a high priority right now. Half of the posts in this thread are "starting units aren't decided yet". There really can't be any decent playtesting until starting units are set.

:) OK here is how it works, if you want something done in this mod, you don't just demand it, you help do it. Someone come up with a list of techs/units for the civs, propose it, discuss it, agree on something, preferably add it to the wiki and I will code it. Also, the tech and units discussion should go to the Civ Discussion Tread, to keep things organized.

In all truth, I agree that deciding starting units and starting techs for each civ is vital to playtest to see how things progress.

It should also be decided what resources need to be allocated where on the map. For instance, I think the Norse and Cordoba need more resources.

No resources have been decided upon for any civ, they all need to be reconsidered.

Start making proposals to the Map Development tread.

I'll do that, trying to play catchup.

:) OK here is how it works, if you want something done in this mod, you don't just demand it, you help do it. Someone come up with a list of techs/units for the civs, propose it, discuss it, agree on something, preferably add it to the wiki and I will code it. Also, the tech and units discussion should go to the Civ Discussion Tread, to keep things organized.

Well said. There's nothing to stop people adding starting units, resources or whatever to any civ when they're play-testing. I do it all the time. It's a no-brainer, guys. There are still a lot of decisions to make about the map, resources, techs, starting units etc. As 3Miro says, don't just moan about the lack of something in the mod. Make concrete suggestions in the discussion thread so we can discuss them. Then we can make a decision and implement it. How do people think we have got this far anyway?

BTW @3Miro Did you figure out that UHV problem I had as Burgundy from the auto-save I posted earlier?

BTW @3Miro Did you figure out that UHV problem I had as Burgundy from the auto-save I posted earlier?

My Bad: I reversed the (x,y) coordinates of the points, the rectangle was wide and short as opposed to tall and tin. It is fixed now. (also I don't know if it is just the fact the I am using you save, but may of the advisory options were on. I usually turn them off, it is very frustrating when the adviser is constantly asking you: build settlers, build settlers and so on).

My Bad: I reversed the (x,y) coordinates of the points, the rectangle was wide and short as opposed to tall and tin. It is fixed now. (also I don't know if it is just the fact the I am using you save, but may of the advisory options were on. I usually turn them off, it is very frustrating when the adviser is constantly asking you: build settlers, build settlers and so on).

OK. Thanks for that. Does that mean I can play on from that save and get the UHV? Sorry about the adviser. I never bother to change that. Maybe I should.

whenever the next version is out, probably yes, but then again, if I bring back updated stability, then probably no.

Unzip the file and move it over the existing Victory.py file in RFCEurope\Assets\Python folder.

whenever the next version is out, probably yes, but then again, if I bring back updated stability, then probably no.

Unzip the file and move it over the existing Victory.py file in RFCEurope\Assets\Python folder.

OK. Now that you've fixed it and will include it in the next version I'm happy with that. Could you also please fix it so the forest is chopped when you improve a tile? It'd speed things up a bit. Thanks.:)

nooo...i like the my wooden mines and towns and farms...

nooo...i like the my wooden mines and towns and farms...

I actually kinda like that too. Not sure how much oomph it gives the player for gameplay (I think too much), but it is a little more realistic. . . , except for the farms and quarries, anyway.

:xtree:

Farms, quarries and Plantations would chop forest (maybe windmills to let more wind), but why would mines remove forest? It will be done eventually.

@3Miro. Just an update on the test game I was playing as Burgundy. I got the 1st. UHV condition after you altered the rectangle. However, when I played on past 1400AD I expected to get the 2nd. one as I've not lost a city to Franks or Germans. It's now 1410 and all the victory screen says is "Not Yet". Can you check the autosave prior to 1400 that I've posted below to see what's wrong?

Also I've noticed we don't have a spy unit and I've had only had Great Spies and Great Scientists but no Great Artists, Great Engineers or Great Prophets. Are they not implemented yet?

:) OK here is how it works, if you want something done in this mod, you don't just demand it, you help do it.

Maybe you failed to realize it, but I have been trying to contribute to this mod before you even signed up to the forums. I think I know how the development works.
Also, I do not live in the USA and english is not my mother language but I'm fairly certain I haven't demanded anything. I've been reading the reports in these pages and the conclusions I drew are that the lack of starting units is a major problem for testing, worse than stability, and should be on the top of the priority list right now. You may discuss and disagree with my opinion but in no way I've been demanding anything. Examples (in english)
observation: there can't be decent testing if starting units aren't set
demand: wtf why aren't starting units set already ? This mod isn't even testable do it now !

all clear now ? kkthxbye

Someone come up with a list of techs/units for the civs, propose it, discuss it, agree on something, preferably add it to the wiki and I will code it. Also, the tech and units discussion should go to the Civ Discussion Tread, to keep things organized.

I'd be happy to help doing it, however my experience is that every time I propose something, it's dismissed without much discussion (which isn't exactly in the spirit of this mod's development), or any at all, and I can't fail to notice that you are exactly one of the main exponents of this behavior.

Maybe you failed to realize it, but I have been trying to contribute to this mod before you even signed up to the forums. I think I know how the development works.
Also, I do not live in the USA and english is not my mother language but I'm fairly certain I haven't demanded anything. I've been reading the reports in these pages and the conclusions I drew are that the lack of starting units is a major problem for testing, worse than stability, and should be on the top of the priority list right now. You may discuss and disagree with my opinion but in no way I've been demanding anything. Examples (in english)
observation: there can't be decent testing if starting units aren't set
demand: wtf why aren't starting units set already ? This mod isn't even testable do it now !

all clear now ? kkthxbye



I'd be happy to help doing it, however my experience is that every time I propose something, it's dismissed without much discussion (which isn't exactly in the spirit of this mod's development), or any at all, and I can't fail to notice that you are exactly one of the main exponents of this behavior.

I quoted you just because you were the last one that to note "starting units aren't there yet", the comments were meant for a more general part of the audience. To be fair, you do make proposals.

I am sorry if it seems that I am dismissing everything you say, I don't mean to insult anyone. There are things that have already been coded after some deliberation and if we wait till everyone agrees on a particular subject, nothing will ever be done. The most helpful thing right now would be proposal on something that has not been coded yet, (i.e. starting units and starting Techs for the civs). We can think about the units, but one of these days a new tech tree would come out, so keep that in mind. The current one just make no sense on some places.

I see, I started working on the starting assets for spawning civs.

/OT

@jessiecat: Burgundian bug is now fixed. A code issue, thanks for catching it.

Third UHV is not there yet since we don't have all resources yet.

@jessiecat: Burgundian bug is now fixed. A code issue, thanks for catching it.

Third UHV is not there yet since we don't have all resources yet.

Thanks. I just tried again with Cordoba. Thought I'd got the UHV in 1000AD. Cordoba was 14. Opened up Worldbuilder. Sure enough Constantinople was only 11. But Jerusalem was 15. Just my luck, eh?

BTW I had a try at the Norse UHV yesterday. Got 3 cities in Britain by 1060 instead of 1000AD. And 1 in each of Britain, Iceland, Ireland and France by 1270 instead of 1200AD. The second would be easy if you didn't have to rush 3 settlers for Britain so early. I wonder if we should change it to control Norway by 1000AD (2 or 3 cities?). Might be more realistic. What do you think?

Part of the problem might be that Norse have few resources and especially when it comes to settlers, those make a big difference. I will give it a try myself. I don't know how useful cities in Norway might be, we cold reduce the British requirement to 2 cities. Also, movement should be increased for all ships.

Playing a game as the Norse I went about it differently. I added a few resources to Denmark (iron, pigs, fish) and settled the second city in Sweden. With Aarhaus and the Swedish city, I was able to get the settlers built.

Of course I also changed the starting units in WB to include 2 settlers, 2 archers and 2 axeman. PLus, 2 turns later I added 3 workers (mirroring more or less how the Viking start in RFC).

The first 2 UHV conditions are realistic, once the starting units and techs are normalized. The third one, reveal all water squares by 1600, needs to be tweaked or better explained. It is in the late 13th century, and by trading maps and exploring with merchants, I was able to reveal the entire map....but no third condition met.

Test play with Cordoba and the new stability scheme. Only Burgundy collapsed, conquered by the Franks. The rest of the AI are doing fine. The system will need more tweaking, but seems to work and would be included in the next test version.

The screenshots are for jessiecat.

Maybe you failed to realize it, but I have been trying to contribute to this mod before you even signed up to the forums. I think I know how the development works.
Also, I do not live in the USA and english is not my mother language but I'm fairly certain I haven't demanded anything. I've been reading the reports in these pages and the conclusions I drew are that the lack of starting units is a major problem for testing, worse than stability, and should be on the top of the priority list right now. You may discuss and disagree with my opinion but in no way I've been demanding anything. Examples (in english)
observation: there can't be decent testing if starting units aren't set
demand: wtf why aren't starting units set already ? This mod isn't even testable do it now !

all clear now ? kkthxbye



I'd be happy to help doing it, however my experience is that every time I propose something, it's dismissed without much discussion (which isn't exactly in the spirit of this mod's development), or any at all, and I can't fail to notice that you are exactly one of the main exponents of this behavior.


Miro handled this far more diplomatically than I would have, but I'm going to weigh in on it to try and prevent any further outbursts.


As you stated, you've been here from the beginning. That's great - there are two of us left, with Jessiecat in third place, but unfortunately no prizes are awarded for longevity. I appreciate your contributions to the mod - you have put in many good ideas, and we've tried to incorporate them when there was general agreement.

On the negative side of things, you're regularly hostile and dismissive of other posters. Your 'suggestions' are presented more like demands, and are often buried in the middle of your writings, and you throw tantrums whenever they aren't responded to.

I understand that English isn't your native language, and that you don't live in the US. Nobody is proposing those as requirements to participate in mod development, and you aren't the only non-native speaker working on the project. There will always be errors in communication, and that's unavoidable - I'm impressed that you're able to communicate effectively in your second language, as I'd have an impossible time doing the same thing in Japanese (my second language).
However, there's a big difference in the way you communicate and the way everyone else here does. It doesn't seem to be a difference in language skill so much as a difference in expression - you are not only opinionated (a good thing) but determined to prove that everyone else is wrong, and you do not hesitate to imply that we are stupid or ignorant. You are dismissive and insulting to those who disagree with you, and you pick fights constantly.


Again, you do make proposals, and you're a smart guy. I appreciate your contributions to the mod, and would like you to continue making them. If you'd like to be in charge of figuring out starting units and techs, please take it on! One way of getting your suggestions implemented is bringing a fully developed set to the table - for example, on a different thread today, you proposed having an aristocrat specialist instead of a scientist. For much of the duration of the mod, this makes a lot of sense. I like the idea. So, why not also propose what the stats on an aristocrat are? Does it produce science, culture, gold, espionage, or some combination? What specialist does it replace? I realize that doing this is a lot of work without any guarantee that it'll be adopted, but that's sort of how the development here has gone - I mean, I made a huge map of Europe and transposed the freaking thing 10 tiles over one piece at a time before knowing that we were going to use it. Several of us have done tech trees. Right now, we're working from Cornelio's proposed colony list, and he showed up three weeks ago. I've got changes I'd like to make to it, but I'm waiting until I have the time to fully develop my own set of ideas to do it. If you can do that sort of thing with your proposals and put them forward in the same manner that everyone else does, they're more likely to be accepted.

Again, we want your help - please keep contributing, and please make an effort to be less abrasive.

Test play with Cordoba and the new stability scheme. Only Burgundy collapsed, conquered by the Franks. The rest of the AI are doing fine. The system will need more tweaking, but seems to work and would be included in the next test version.

The screenshots are for jessiecat.

Curses! Foiled again.:wallbash::hatsoff:

BTW How did you get Cordoba to size 17? The best I could do was 14 after many attempts.:confused:

Originally I had Cordoba as 16, 17 happened only after couple of Great Merchants settled. From the very beginning, go for feudalism and settle Cordoba and Seville. I think I added couple of Workers from the WB, but you could probably do it without. Build one ot two more workers in Seville and work the Silver until you get Feudalism. Start in Cordoba with a granary and keep one worker on the forested hills (build mine), the rest should go on irrigated tiles. Don't build workers in Cordoba, it slows you too much.

Thanks for that. I'll try again when the next version comes out.

BTW I just had a try with the Venice start. I realize now why she's usually wiped out early. Even though I added a couple of axmen and spearmen I was defeated in about 10 turns by a rabid AI Rome using endless catapults. Why is Venice automatically at war with an independent Rome anyway?

Thanks for that. I'll try again when the next version comes out.

BTW I just had a try with the Venice start. I realize now why she's usually wiped out early. Even though I added a couple of axmen and spearmen I was defeated in about 10 turns by a rabid AI Rome using endless catapults. Why is Venice automatically at war with an independent Rome anyway?

Its a BUG, I have not figured it out yet. Everyone starts at war with the Indeps.

incidentally, indipendents shouldn't be able to go in the jungle 3Miro. If you have time to fix that (or tell me where to look).

As far as I can remember, jungles are place holders for marshes and units should enter marshes. Both Venice and the Indeps should enter them (maybe st.Lucifer can say if I am right, he was the map guy). Either way, the "cannot enter jungles" is in the XML (for every individual unit).

well, my venetian military units couldn't enter the "jungle", only the papal states ones could. The last thing I've read on the matter is in the map thread from post 263 through post 271. Could be changed since then... St Lucifer ? :D

I played a test game as the Norse and gave myself the following starting units (2 settlers, 2 workers, 2 beserkers, 2 galleys). The first UHV was relatively easy to make in time with this, but I like the tension inherent in settling on English land which will turn hostile some number of turns after you meet the first goal. So that was all to the good.

A few observations:

There's no effective way to limit the growth of cities. The lack of slavery/caste system provides limited realistic options for keeping your cities small. Markets are enabled at the start, so you can build one and run a couple merchants, which helps, but that's pretty much your only option other than letting your cities get big and unhappy. Serfdom, as currently designed, exacerbates this problem by providing even more food.

Options for initial culture are similarly limited without religion. I had contact with the (Catholic) Franks and Burgundians, but didn't get religion up to 1060 AD. Without a religion, currently one can research Theology->Art and get the option to build culture. This is the only way to pop your borders in new cities in the early game. Perhaps we should have a monument-like building for initial non-religious culture?

I'm going to think about these problems and play another test game before proposing/implementing solutions, but I'd welcome other people's opinions on how the early game play feels (not just on the UHVs).

I'm now playing with bulgaria and at 696 AD I met my first condition of the UHV:
Own every city in Misia, Thracia and Macedonia by 1400 AD.

If it was intended to do it this way, by just capturing some cities from the Byzantines, it is way to easy... Just attack with some konniks and you'll have your first condition in a few turns.
Or wasn't it intended that you could meet that condition before 1400 AD?

I'm now playing with bulgaria and at 696 AD I met my first condition of the UHV:
Own every city in Misia, Thracia and Macedonia by 1400 AD.

If it was intended to do it this way, by just capturing some cities from the Byzantines, it is way to easy... Just attack with some konniks and you'll have your first condition in a few turns.
Or wasn't it intended that you could meet that condition before 1400 AD?

I had a similar situation happen in my test as Bulgaria. Of course eventually my stability caused collapse when I over expanded.

What if serfdom would give a bonus (+1 gold ?) to the worker specialist ? Could be a good tool to limit early city growth ?

What if serfdom would give a bonus (+1 gold ?) to the worker specialist ? Could be a good tool to limit early city growth ?

I like that idea.

Bulgarian UHV read by 1400AD, so you can get it relatively early. The catch is that you have to capture Constantinople and while in the current version it is relatively easy, eventually there would be some spearman behind the walls. The initial Bulgarian invasion would not capture more then Sredec and Adrianopolis and I am thinking about extending the victory condition to include Thessaloníki as well, so that one would not be so easy.

Sefdom: a gold and an extra hammer for +2h +1g.

@3Miro. A report on my current Arabian game with the new version. The first UHV is easy but don't try to expand beyond Aleppo and Antioch as everything just flips to the Ottomans when they spawn. The Byzantines were not a problem after I captured 2 cities and razed 4 more.

The 2nd. UHV could be very hard esp later in the game. The best I had was 22% about the time I got the first UHV condition. It gets less doable the longer the game goes.

The 3rd. UHV is very doable if you build lots of cities (31, see screenshot). I got control of all N. Africa east of Oran by 1600AD (not "West" as the UHV conditions and the civ list still describes! That needs a fix before I can finish this game. Again see screenshot).

A couple of other points. When you found Islam in Damascus you don't even get a mosque, let alone a Grand Mosque. You get a mosque if you flip or conquer a city but not when you found a new city. If Islam spreads to your new city when you found it, shouldn't you get a mosque automatically?
Where are the spies? Great spies are pretty useless without them. If I had spies I could spread culture or religion which would be very handy in getting the 30% Islam, wouldn't it? I looked for them in the civlopedia unit list and they're not there. Why not?

Sefdom: a gold and an extra hammer for +2h +1g.

isn't that too much ? serfs aren't limited.

well, my venetian military units couldn't enter the "jungle", only the papal states ones could. The last thing I've read on the matter is in the map thread from post 263 through post 271. Could be changed since then... St Lucifer ? :D

No intentional changes since then!

Now that we have the alpha up and running, do we want to start thinking about adding in the new terrain and resources? It can certainly wait, but that's one place I can make myself useful. Gameplay is likely to change once the unchoppable forest is implemented, so we might want to think about doing that sooner than later.

I say: if you have time, there's not harm in doing it :D
FFH2 has a marsh terrain implemented in the last version that you might ask them to borrow.

@jessiecat, the Oran control only needs couple of cities (so long as noone esle has any cities in the region). I will change the name.

I got the 30% UHV easily very early. After getting enough Byzantine cities and meeting them grow before everyone else spawns. iF it is a problem we may have to reduce it to 25%.

@jessiecat, the Oran control only needs couple of cities (so long as noone esle has any cities in the region). I will change the name.

I got the 30% UHV easily very early. After getting enough Byzantine cities and meeting them grow before everyone else spawns. iF it is a problem we may have to reduce it to 25%.

OK. I thought it might be doable in the way you describe. I was trying to get it gradually by expansion. So once you've got 30% you don't have to maintain it. Right? What about the other issues I raised? ie. Founding Islam in Damascus but no mosque, and why can't we build spies?

You can't build spys because I didn't include them in the Units xml file. I'll fix that. Also, I'll put scouts back in so that the AI doesn't explore with catapults.

@sedna, also increase the movement of naval units, it takes forever for a trireme to get from Arabia to Spain.

@jessiecat, the original Arabian UP does not include mosques in founded cities, only in conquered ones. I will fix that.

Currently playing as Bulgaria at viceroy (normally a Warlord player). Immediately DOWed Byzantines, captured Adrianople, Thessalonica and Serdika, asked for peace and was denied it (taken it only after capturing Athens and only by giving it back). Built Varna and Bolhorod and then Pathragada (didn't like it so restarted from last auto-save). Instead of Pathragada, founded Drats, and then streched through Adriatica by founding Preveza at south and Dubrovnik at north. Vassalized Hungary, and in 1200 AD (current age) I am first in score, around 100 points in front of Arabs (don't know any of the Spanish though)
1) Will Pathragada be changed, or the area north odf Danube delta will be removed from Settler map of Bulgarians?
2) Are the three captured cities enough for the second UHV condition?
3) Is liberating cities, after war, meant as city loss, and so loss of first UHV condition?
4) I was kinda surprised about the lack of obstacles in expanding at Adriatica, something historically only sparingly achieved by Bulgaria
5) Favourite civic of all Paganism?
Seems more balanced without stability. Thanks for the good job!!:)

Currently playing as Bulgaria at viceroy (normally a Warlord player). Immediately DOWed Byzantines, captured Adrianople, Thessalonica and Serdika, asked for peace and was denied it (taken it only after capturing Athens and only by giving it back). Built Varna and Bolhorod and then Pathragada (didn't like it so restarted from last auto-save). Instead of Pathragada, founded Drats, and then streched through Adriatica by founding Preveza at south and Dubrovnik at north. Vassalized Hungary, and in 1200 AD (current age) I am first in score, around 100 points in front of Arabs (don't know any of the Spanish though)
1) Will Pathragada be changed, or the area north odf Danube delta will be removed from Settler map of Bulgarians?
2) Are the three captured cities enough for the second UHV condition?
3) Is liberating cities, after war, meant as city loss, and so loss of first UHV condition?
4) I was kinda surprised about the lack of obstacles in expanding at Adriatica, something historically only sparingly achieved by Bulgaria
5) Favourite civic of all Paganism?
Seems more balanced without stability. Thanks for the good job!!:)

1) Map changes since we last edited the city name map, the name should be something else. Will be fixed (eventually).
2) The UHV is by year X, thus it would register as soon as achieved. The goal should have been clarified, conquer Constantinople.
3) Liberating cities should not count against the UHV (check the victory screen, it should still say Not Yet).
4) Normally there would be Indep cities in the area, Ragusa, Drats and maybe others. Also, that would lead to a conflict with Venetia. Should check the Vassalization problem, Bulgaria should enter into war with Hungary.
5) Favorite Civics and religions are still in the air. It is on the to-do list.

Could you post a savegame?

@3Miro. Just to report my Arabia game in the latest version (Nov.14, Monarch level). Thanks for the UHV changes you made, with mosques in every city. Also I tried the Islam spread in the way you suggested and got 28% by 960AD. Religious prosecutors were a big help. It fell back to 26% by 1000AD so lowering it to 25% was a good move. Got the 2 UHVs and Triumphal Arch so only the 3rd. condition to get which should be easy. I think we should make that one harder. Say 1500AD rather than 1700AD? What do you think?

@ 3Miro: Bulgarian UHV would be more realistic, if they didn't have to capture Constantinople. Perhaps Athens instead.
Saved game is also included.

@micbic: Olimpia is the furthest into Peloponnese that Bulgarian ever got, however, there was never a strong Bulgarian ruler that did not try to capture Constantinople. Bulgar raids tried to get it as early as 500AD and then the number of sieges that were laid is hard to count. It is hard, but it is realistic.

OK then. Thanks for the explanation.

OK then. Thanks for the explanation.

OK then. Thanks for the explanation.

OK then. Thanks for the explanation.

OK then. Thanks for the explanation.

Quadruple post!:eek: This must be a new record.:lol:

Didn't want it!!!:lol:

will you change the flags in the final version?

will you change the flags in the final version?

As of right now, flags are somewhat random. If you have better proposals, you could post the files here and sedna could add them when/if he gets time. Flags are a low priority, right now we are working on wonders.

1) In re flags, St. George's Cross would be nice for Genoa, if it doesn't conflict with everyone.

2) I just was playing as Burgundy on the viceroy level. Stability was a major issue. I broke down in civil war three times, the major factors were economy, citiies and civics. I don't know what to do about civics, but economy Burgundy is going to get screwed with if custom houses are the only aid, and constant instability and civil war won't help the fixing the cities portion. Horses closer to Dijon would help too. On the upside, I wasn't surrounded by bloodthirsty independents. :-)

I played as Hungary and I think the history goal "have the most territory in Europe" or sg like that should be renamed for having the most territory on the map, because Arabia is not in Europe but unfortunately they had more territories than me :). And Free Religion UHV isn't working yet. (I really think I was the first to adapt free religion, but not the first to found liberalism. Maybe that's the problem.)

As of right now, flags are somewhat random. If you have better proposals, you could post the files here and sedna could add them when/if he gets time. Flags are a low priority, right now we are working on wonders.

Just for people's information I found the last version of agreed flags from the (now extinct) Code Coordination thread. A couple still need work. There should be a crescent aded to the Ottoman one and the Bulgaria flag is a bit too close to the Austrian one. Anyway, look at these. What do you think?

Edit. Transferred to Art and Flags Thread.

Just played a test game as Austria, a few points to be made

1. What is the Carpathian basin for the first UHV condition? I am unsure what this area refers to

2. Why does Austria start at Zara? Is there a historical reason for this?

3. Bulgaria were too powerful and at one stage controlled 5 vassal states(inc. Byzantines), as well as the territory of Kiev and Poland (and were v. solid). This made meeting the UHV condition about vassal states impossible

4. UHV condition about DPs worked fine

5. City naming maps for the eastern civs are producing some unusual city names e.g. Cherokee in Russia, Hastings/Poitiers in Ukraine. What is involved with producing the city name maps- I would be happy to help out here but have no knowledge of coding whatsoever.

6. Genoa are not receiving starting techs(the ony non-starting civ for this I believe.

7. Stability is much better. The only problems I saw were Germany, Franks and Burgundy, which all collapsed before my spawn. After this only Kieven Rus collapsed, due to an aggressive Bulgaria. Incidently, do collapsed states re-spawn in this? I haven't seen this happen.

8. Norse civ is still turtling in Denmark. In all test games I have played, I have only seen them found Stavenger outside of Denmark. Can the AI be encouraged to settle further afield than Roskilde?

9. Has inflation been turned up for this mod? In my game it is responsible for around 70% of my total costs at 1700, and I have no idea how to cut inflation in my empire, if it is even possible

Just played a test game as Austria, a few points to be made

1. What is the Carpathian basin for the first UHV condition? I am unsure what this area refers to

2. Why does Austria start at Zara? Is there a historical reason for this?

3. Bulgaria were too powerful and at one stage controlled 5 vassal states(inc. Byzantines), as well as the territory of Kiev and Poland (and were v. solid). This made meeting the UHV condition about vassal states impossible

4. UHV condition about DPs worked fine

5. City naming maps for the eastern civs are producing some unusual city names e.g. Cherokee in Russia, Hastings/Poitiers in Ukraine. What is involved with producing the city name maps- I would be happy to help out here but have no knowledge of coding whatsoever.

6. Genoa are not receiving starting techs(the ony non-starting civ for this I believe.

7. Stability is much better. The only problems I saw were Germany, Franks and Burgundy, which all collapsed before my spawn. After this only Kieven Rus collapsed, due to an aggressive Bulgaria. Incidently, do collapsed states re-spawn in this? I haven't seen this happen.

8. Norse civ is still turtling in Denmark. In all test games I have played, I have only seen them found Stavenger outside of Denmark. Can the AI be encouraged to settle further afield than Roskilde?

1. The plains area west and north of the Carpathian Mts. (east of where Hungary spawns).
2. Try a couple of restarts as Austria and try each nearby tile until you find
one as Vienna. If not, either the tile or the start can be changed.
3. Starting units for all civs have yet to be decided. When they are, Hungary
will be made as strong as Bulgaria. In the meantime, you can add any units you
like when you're play-testing.
5. Are you sure about "Cherokee" in Russia? I thought the Russia map was done.
If not one of us will have to do it.
6. I thought Sedna had given starting techs to all civs. If not, he will soon.
7. That happens in my games a lot. Those 3 seem to wipe each other out just for the hell of it.
I don't think re-spawning has been coded yet.
8. I've noticed the Norse do this too. I think they need to be encouraged to get out more.:lol:

[QUOTE=jessiecat;7455874]when you're play-testing.
5. Are you sure about "Cherokee" in Russia? I thought the Russia map was done.
QUOTE]

If you can tell me how to post a screenshot, then I will do so to show this (apologies for the ignorance, I am limited in my computer skills

Hi Donbot,

I believe you that Russia may sometimes get funny names -- the map is not complete, and if you settle in one of the "off" tiles you'll get a randomly chosen name. I'll try to work out an improved system for people to contribute city names for us and post about it when I do. Thanks for your offer of help.

[QUOTE=jessiecat;7455874]when you're play-testing.
5. Are you sure about "Cherokee" in Russia? I thought the Russia map was done.
QUOTE]

If you can tell me how to post a screenshot, then I will do so to show this (apologies for the ignorance, I am limited in my computer skills

Sure. Just press the Prt Scr button your keyboard (top row, right of F12). It will be saved
to Screenshots. Right-click your BTS icon, go to Properties, open "Screenshots", right click
the save and send it to My Documents. You can post it from there.

BTW I just tried Austria. Not only is the location wrong but all the names in the area
are too. Somebody's going to have to completely redo the names I think.

Just for people's information I found the last version of agreed flags from the (now extinct) Code Coordination thread. A couple still need work. There should be a crescent aded to the Ottoman one and the Bulgaria flag is a bit too close to the Austrian one. Anyway, look at these. What do you think?

I've also found a possible replacement for the Ottoman flag, the Kievan flag and the Dutch one.

Edit. Transferred to Art and Flags Thread.

I played again as Hungary and it turned out that
1. none of the Hungarian UHVs are working
2. Germany is always conquered in a few turns (now by Bulgaria, I don't know how)
3. Frankia and Burgundy can't reach the technology level which the new civs are coming with, and they are really backward (but only Burgundy collapsed, Frankia did not)
4. Is Moscow supposed to start with the city of Moscow and Kijev with the city of Kijev?
5. There was an Ottoman city with that thing as name: #NAME.

Just played a test game as Austria, a few points to be made

1. What is the Carpathian basin for the first UHV condition? I am unsure what this area refers to

2. Why does Austria start at Zara? Is there a historical reason for this?

3. Bulgaria were too powerful and at one stage controlled 5 vassal states(inc. Byzantines), as well as the territory of Kiev and Poland (and were v. solid). This made meeting the UHV condition about vassal states impossible

4. UHV condition about DPs worked fine

5. City naming maps for the eastern civs are producing some unusual city names e.g. Cherokee in Russia, Hastings/Poitiers in Ukraine. What is involved with producing the city name maps- I would be happy to help out here but have no knowledge of coding whatsoever.

6. Genoa are not receiving starting techs(the ony non-starting civ for this I believe.

7. Stability is much better. The only problems I saw were Germany, Franks and Burgundy, which all collapsed before my spawn. After this only Kieven Rus collapsed, due to an aggressive Bulgaria. Incidently, do collapsed states re-spawn in this? I haven't seen this happen.

8. Norse civ is still turtling in Denmark. In all test games I have played, I have only seen them found Stavenger outside of Denmark. Can the AI be encouraged to settle further afield than Roskilde?

9. Has inflation been turned up for this mod? In my game it is responsible for around 70% of my total costs at 1700, and I have no idea how to cut inflation in my empire, if it is even possible

1. The regions are somewhat iffy, the way I coded it it includes at least part of Hungary. I will try to come up with some sort of a map that will show where the regions are. (it is in Victory tAustrianControl, but to translate the coordinates into actual spot on the map you would need the excel spreadsheet.)

3. Strong Bulgaria is to be expected as part of the challenge, but overall civs vassalize too easily. I will look into fixing that.

4. Good to know.

5. The city names have to be perfectly aligned to the map. The maps is not fully finalized yet so there would be more problems with the names.

6. All civs should receive starting techs, Genoa was a bug.

7. Franks and Burgundians collapse each other, Expansion stability needs to be improved. Nations do respawn, just the odds are very small.

8. Norse need starting ships. I will see about the AI.

9. Inflation is adjustable.

Playing as Burgundy, I have had no stability problems myself- Germans, Norse and Franks all declared war on me within 5 turns of meeting me, which was ridiculous as I had advanced quickly and built a good army and defeated them easily. Can the aggresiveness of these civs be toned down?

Also, newly spawned nations are spawning with much less technologies than I have at the time. I think either Burgundy have an extremely strong starting position, or civs require more starting techs than given at the moment

Is Odeon supposed to be the Burgundian unique building?

How about moving the Catholic Holy City around to represent Western nations controlling the Pope? Could the Papal Favour concept be brought over from the Charlemagne scenario? It might help Catholicism get where it needs to be without the blunt instrument of a large spread bonus.

If the start date is 500 it would be wholly appropriate for most cities in ex-West Roman continental Europe and North Africa to hold to Catholicism already.

Papal State would be eventually a nation of its own (with special rules). I am still considering what is possible in terms of the code.

It makes no sense to move any holy city. Fight for control of the Papacy could be implemented otherwise.

Just for people's information I found the last version of agreed flags from the (now extinct) Code Coordination thread. A couple still need work. There should be a crescent aded to the Ottoman one and the Bulgaria flag is a bit too close to the Austrian one. Anyway, look at these. What do you think?

Go ahead and start up a new flag thread - space is no longer an issue, and the artwork deserves its own space.

Just played a test game as Austria, a few points to be made

8. Norse civ is still turtling in Denmark. In all test games I have played, I have only seen them found Stavenger outside of Denmark. Can the AI be encouraged to settle further afield than Roskilde?


Thanks for your feedback.


When we get independent cities put in, the Norse spawn is supposed to flip Tonsberg in Norway, giving them a foothold on both landmasses - but they should probably have some ships, too.


Miro, is it possible to turn off inflation for a while, until things are a little more settled, as you did with stability?

OK I will decrease the inflation for everyone. Keep in mind that we want to make a challenging game, we don't want something that is too easy.

Notes to sedna, open borders should come earlier in the tech tree. Associate them with Map Making or something similar.

Playing as Burgundians I have had no problems with inflation. Is it something that affects later spawning civs worse?

I think the biggest obstacle to good playtesting now, in addition to setting up the correct starting units, is the lack of default buildings upon city founding.

That said, I started a few late games just to see the world situation.

Arabia seems almost overpowered, but maybe that's deliberate. When I spawned as the Dutch, they had the highest score with 3,000 points and the next closest was Cordoba with 2,000. Pretty big gap. I think the Ottomans need to spawn with a tougher military and a hyper-aggressive AI or else the Arabs will always keep them totally penned in.

I think the Moscovites should start with three Settlers instead of two.

In my game the Burgundian civ collapsed in 1035.

The religious distribution/spread seems pretty accurate so kudos on that.

When I got the tech that gave me Free Peasantry and Merchant Republic there were some "TXT" stuff in the description of "do you want to switch over."

Oh, and I also got a Cherokee Russian city. See screenshot.

Oh, and a TXT holiday. See screenshot.

More updates as they come.

More comments. Protestantism founded in 1398 by Bulgaria. Arabia has spread through Africa, which is good. It's still early, but I think Ottomans need some steroids. I took a History of the Ottoman Empire class as an undergraduate a few years back, and they spread like crazy, conquering the entire region within a few hundred years with incredible speed. I can't imagine that ever happening in this game.

As of 1401, the scoreboard has Arabia with 2837, Bulgaria with 1932, Spain at 1750, and then Venezia, Germany, Kiev, and Byzantium spread out between 1500 and 1200.

So far in this game, Byzantium has declined slowly, with cities declaring independence on its edges periodically. It's been pretty accurate and I've been pleased to watch the other civs rise up.

Big parts of the map are still empty. I think something needs to be done with southern Italy. More independent cities maybe, but it's strange to see Sicility and Naples completely unsettled.

The key to the Ottoman's success was the very effective "divide and conquer" strategy. They would first negotiate with their rivals, vassalize them, use their armies and conquer them one by one. (it also helped that all Balkan nations were divided, there was no single strong opponent to resist them). Ottoman's UP should help in that respect, they can draft from newly conquered cities, that would give them almost an abuse in terms of fast army growth. I just don't know if the AI would handle it properly.

Good to know that things seem to be getting to work, piece by piece.

I think the biggest obstacle to good playtesting now, in addition to setting up the correct starting units, is the lack of default buildings upon city founding.

That said, I started a few late games just to see the world situation.

Arabia seems almost overpowered, but maybe that's deliberate. When I spawned as the Dutch, they had the highest score with 3,000 points and the next closest was Cordoba with 2,000. Pretty big gap. I think the Ottomans need to spawn with a tougher military and a hyper-aggressive AI or else the Arabs will always keep them totally penned in.

I think the Moscovites should start with three Settlers instead of two.

In my game the Burgundian civ collapsed in 1035.

The religious distribution/spread seems pretty accurate so kudos on that.

When I got the tech that gave me Free Peasantry and Merchant Republic there were some "TXT" stuff in the description of "do you want to switch over."

Oh, and I also got a Cherokee Russian city. See screenshot.

Oh, and a TXT holiday. See screenshot.

More updates as they come.

Thanks for your feedback.

Arabia will probably be toned down somewhat.

Thanks for the TXT reports. That's just a matter of me being lazy when I was first starting to figure out the XML. It's on my to-do list now.

Just to report I got the first two UHVs as Venice (Monarch level) by 1500 instead of 1600 so it is very doable. Pity the 3rd. UHV hasn't been decided yet. It'd be fun to get my first UHV victory on this mod officially.:D

BTW I did start a game as Poland but soon realized that the first UHV is impossible. Having the largest population (in Europe?, in the game?) is not doable in the short time span. By 1500 I had about 8% of pop. while the Arabs had over 20%. Either we change that condition or don't count the Arabs in that condition. Or severely hobble the Arabs? Whatever.

Just to report I got the first two UHVs as Venice (Monarch level) by 1500 instead of 1600 so it is very doable. Pity the 3rd. UHV hasn't been decided yet. It'd be fun to get my first UHV victory on this mod officially.:D

Sorry about that, but I need a list of resources to code it.Since those have not been coded yet, I cannot code the 8 lux-resources.

Just to report I got the first two UHVs as Venice (Monarch level) by 1500 instead of 1600 so it is very doable. Pity the 3rd. UHV hasn't been decided yet. It'd be fun to get my first UHV victory on this mod officially.:D

BTW I did start a game as Poland but soon realized that the first UHV is impossible. Having the largest population (in Europe?, in the game?) is not doable in the short time span. By 1500 I had about 8% of pop. while the Arabs had over 20%. Either we change that condition or don't count the Arabs in that condition. Or severely hobble the Arabs? Whatever.

I have to agree with that - there's no way Poland is going to pull that off. Even doing a Settler spam, I don't think it's possible.

I was thinking maybe going through all the later civs and telling the coders what units they should spawn with. I imagine that would be relatively easy to code and would encourage playtesters by making gameplay a little bit more enjoyable. Would someone with some authority confirm that they would be willing to take the time to code in the units before I start running the various starts for all the civs and investigating the state of the world at the time in which they spawn?

I have to agree with that - there's no way Poland is going to pull that off. Even doing a Settler spam, I don't think it's possible.

I was thinking maybe going through all the later civs and telling the coders what units they should spawn with. I imagine that would be relatively easy to code and would encourage playtesters by making gameplay a little bit more enjoyable. Would someone with some authority confirm that they would be willing to take the time to code in the units before I start running the various starts for all the civs and investigating the state of the world at the time in which they spawn?

Propose a list, people will discuss it, make additional suggestions and when there is some agreement, the list will be coded. We will code the starting units as soon as there is agreement, we need to do that.

8% for Poland is not bad. If Arabia is first with 20%, then the UHV may be doable (eventually). Poland starts later in the game, so they will be given a growth bonus (just like all the late starts in RFC) and Arabia would be given a bonus. Also, remember that resources are not there yet, with some proper resources in their land, the Polish could do better.

3Miro and Sedna17 are our modding experts and I know they're busy doing a lot at the moment. I think that finishing the UPs and UHVs are the first priority, followed by changes to the map and resources. And finally wonders and projects. I agree that play-testing would be easier with accurate units and buildings but for now we're going to have to use our judgement and add a few extras via Worldbuilder. That's what I do now and is OK if you don't overdue it. Be patient. There's so much to do and too few coders to to do it. We're getting there.

Sorry for the crosspost.

Playing as England today, I am fnding that nations cannot vassalize in their first 20 turns, but are doing so almost as soon as the 20 tuns are up. I am also finding in every game at the moment that Frankia are on around 250score as late as 1200 (yet they dont vassalize to anyone!), around a third of the next lowest. I guess once resources are finalised they will do better, but it may be something that requires looking at in the future.

Also, I dont believe Englands uhv condition to reach the industrial age is currently doable, as Arabia, Cordoba and Bulgaria are all teching way too quickly to catch up.

The first UHV condition appears too easy( I control all of Britain, Ireland and 2cities in France with over 100 years to spare. I think this will be solved by putting powerful independants in Scotland and Ireland.

One city in France, which usually flips on spawn, just hold on to it. You don't have to build cities in Ireland so long as there are no Indep or Norse cities in the area and you have at least one city in the main Island you will be find.

Why is the Hungarian capitol Nandorferhervar, which I know is Belgrade. Shouldn't they start in Hungary as opposed to Serbia?
Also this mod is very awesome and I have played as the Venetians and the Byzantines and they both work well.

I think I found the root problem with the unusual city names popping up. I figured it out after the Cordobans founded "Kufah" (which is on the Vanilla Arab list) two tiles away from Sevilla.

The city names map contains many names which cover a wide area, often greater than a 2x2 square. Sometimes, particularly if the AI settler map is tight, the AI will try to found two cities within the name range of a single city. In the case I'm citing, the AI founded a second city on a tile for Sevilla after having founded Sevilla two tiles away.

The only solution to this is completely reworking the city name maps so that all names appear at most in a 2x2 square, and therefore a second city can't be founded which would have the same name as an already existing city, which causes the game to default to the old city list (in the case of Cordoba to the Arab list but in the case of Kiev, for example, to the Native American list).

I think I found the root problem with the unusual city names popping up. I figured it out after the Cordobans founded "Kufah" (which is on the Vanilla Arab list) two tiles away from Sevilla.

The city names map contains many names which cover a wide area, often greater than a 2x2 square. Sometimes, particularly if the AI settler map is tight, the AI will try to found two cities within the name range of a single city. In the case I'm citing, the AI founded a second city on a tile for Sevilla after having founded Sevilla two tiles away.

The only solution to this is completely reworking the city name maps so that all names appear at most in a 2x2 square, and therefore a second city can't be founded which would have the same name as an already existing city, which causes the game to default to the old city list (in the case of Cordoba to the Arab list but in the case of Kiev, for example, to the Native American list).

City name maps were supposed to follow the 2x2 city size convention except for very special cases (i.e. pre-build cities and maybe capitols). Another paer of the problem is that part of the map has been changed since many of the city name maps were first made, so not all tiles have names associated with them. When the map is finalized, city name maps would be finalized too (I hope with everyone's help).

Yea. Some of the areas will have to redone. And one or two haven't been done at all. We'll have to go back to the map and recheck it area by area.

BTW I've just been trying for a UHV victory as Bulgaria. I got the monasteries and cathedrals very early and thought I had control of all the required area incl. Macedonia and Greece before taking Constantinople. Took me ages to find the name Misia in Wiki as apparently there isn't a province by that name anymore. Only on ancient maps. It looks like it's the area south and west of the Danube. Is that right?
And does control count if your vassal has a city on the border? Anyway, I conquered Constantinople just before 1400AD but in 1404 it was still saying "Not Yet" for that condition. It's not saying I've failed to do it. Is it saying its not 1400 yet? I'm posting an earlier auto-save and a screenshot. Maybe you can figure it out.

Yes, the Bulgarian one maybe made more clear. Misia is roughly the territory between Danube and the Balkan Mountain, Thracia is the area south between the Balkan Mnt. and Aegean Sea and Macedonia is the area of modern North-West Greece and Macedonia (small part is in Bulgaria). I picked this as a description because the three lions on the Bulgarian coat of arms signify those three regions.

In terms of the game, you need to capture Sofie (Serdica/Sredec), Ardianopolis and Constantinople. Vassals do not count here, Cordoba can vassalize Iberia, Bulgaria has to own every city. I will look at the save later.

EDIT: Nandorfehervar is the problem, everything is described in terms of rectangles and to incorporate the area around Varna I had to include that tile too. Nandorfehervar is right on the border.

Yes, the Bulgarian one maybe made more clear. Misia is roughly the territory between Danube and the Balkan Mountain, Thracia is the area south between the Balkan Mnt. and Aegean Sea and Macedonia is the area of modern North-West Greece and Macedonia (small part is in Bulgaria). I picked this as a description because the three lions on the Bulgarian coat of arms signify those three regions.

In terms of the game, you need to capture Sofie (Serdica/Sredec), Ardianopolis and Constantinople. Vassals do not count here, Cordoba can vassalize Iberia, Bulgaria has to own every city. I will look at the save later.

EDIT: Nandorfehervar is the problem, everything is described in terms of rectangles and to incorporate the area around Varna I had to include that tile too. Nandorfehervar is right on the border.

Yes but the requirement is 1400AD. It doesn't say NO. In 1404 it just says "Not Yet".:confused:

Edit. I could go back and attack Hungary. How do you get rid of a vassal?

Getting rid of vassals is very hard. Part of the problem with Inca and Aztec control for the Spanish, you have to make sure you don't vassalize them.

I will look at the 1400AD problem.

In re. the Misia question, it seems the standard English spelling is Moesia, at least as far as Britannica and Wikipedia goes.

For a more global fix to these sometimes ambiguous geographic requirements, how difficult would it be to put in the civilopedia a map detailing what has to be controlled for some of the requirements and what the natural area is for each civ? The joy of discovering what's in your realm and what isn't by watching the stability stars isn't much of a joy for me, and sometimes it's flat out confusing. Burgundy is a good example of this, the lines amongst Belgium, Pas de Calais, Picardie, Holland, Westphalia and the Rhineland is confusing!

For the vassal issue, perhaps a "flip these cities, or else" or "welcome to becoming a full province of the motherland, or else" demand. Perhaps this would also be a good option for the "royal wedding" event.

RFC has an Atlas that can be downloaded separately from the mod. We should either have that or figure how to incorporate the regions into the Pedia (as of right now I don't know how to do such a thing)

As it happens, I did the latest version of the RFC atlas. Unfortunately that system is dumb (in the sense of non-automated), so it would be a bit of work to put together an RFC Europe version. It has capabilities not available in a civilopedia entry though, and it is quite pretty.

So someone knows how it is done :)

Where might one find this pretty atlas?

The Atlas (http://meat.arvixe.com/~joeyroe/rfc_atlas/) is for the Rhye's and Fall, not Europe. That's the one you're asking about, right civmademepoor?

I also wanted to say that I am currently working through the startups of all the civilizations (I've got five left, but they're the five that take the longest to load). I'll post my unit recommendations but I wanted to make a few general notes, as I've now gone through more then a dozen random startups.

Sometimes civs don’t use both Settlers when they get founded. For Venice this seems to be the vast majority of the time.

Franzia and Burgundy seem consistently to be at the bottom of the scoreboard, often by a considerable amount. I don't know what can be done to give them a more sporting chance - maybe it's just the placeholder technologies or units - but right now they're both really sucking it up on the whole.

More specifics later.

After spending about three hours playtesting (primarily starting up each civ and poking around the world for a few minutes), this is what I've come up with as far as starting units. No indentation means it's already programmed. Italics means it's currently in place and I believe should be taken out (namely all those Warriors.) Bold means I think it should be added. I'm sure each of these, especially the later ones, will require tweaking but after going through civ by civ, I can tell you that this would be a lot more balanced than it is now. I mean, I know the game is still in the early phases, so I'm not saying that it's bad that it's unbalanced now. I just mean that this would be an improvement and a step towards the actual finalized starting units.

Burgundy 500 AD
1 Settler
1 Catholic Missionary
1 Worker
1 Warrior
2 Archers

Franks 500 AD
1 Settler
1 Catholic Missionary
1 Worker
1 Warrior
2 Archers

Byzantines 500 AD
Assumed they’re fine for now.

Arabs 632 AD
Assumed they’re fine for now.

Bulgaria 640 AD
9 Konniks -> reduce to 4 or 5
2 Archers
2 Settlers
… a few turns later 2 Workers

Cordoba 700 AD
2 Settlers
2 Islamic Missionaries
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 2 Workers
2 Archers
1 Axeman

Spain 720 AD
2 Settlers
2 Catholic Missionaries
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 2 Workers
3 Archers
1 Light Swordsman

Norse 770 AD
2 Settlers
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 2 Workers
2 Archers
2 Axeman
1 Light Swordsman
1 Galley
1 Trireme

Venezia 800 AD
2 Settlers
2 Catholic Missionaries
1 Heavy Crossbowman –> Crossbowman
1 Pikeman
1 Light Swordsman
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 3 Workers
1 Workboat
3 Archers

Kievan Rus 880 AD
2 Settlers
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 3 Workers
2 Archers
2 Pikeman
2 Mounted Infantry

Hungary 900 AD
2 Settlers -> 3 Settlers
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 3 Workers
3 Archers
1 Light Swordsman
1 Axeman
1 Pikeman

Germany 939 AD
2 Settlers -> 3 Settlers
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 3 Workers
3 Archers
1 Light Swordsman
1 Axeman
1 Crossbowman

Polish 970 AD
2 Settlers -> 3 Settlers
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 3 Workers
3 Archers
2 Pikeman
2 Horse Archers

Moscow 999 AD
2 Settlers -> 3 Settlers
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 3 Workers
4 Archers
1 Pikeman
1 Crossbow
2 Mounted Infantry

Genoa 1020 AD
2 Settlers
2 Catholic Missionaries
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 3 Workers
1 Workboat
3 Archers
2 Light Swordsman
2 Crossbows

English 1060 AD
2 Settlers
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 3 Workers
1 Workboat
3 Archers
2 Light Swordsman
2 Crossbows
1 Galley

Portugal 1101 AD
2 Settlers
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 3 Workers
1 Workboat
4 Archers
2 Axeman
2 Light Swordsman
2 Crossbow

Austria 1161 AD
2 Settlers -> 3 Settlers
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 4 Workers
4 Archers
2 Axeman
2 Light Swordsman
2 Crossbow

Turkey 1299 AD
Assumed they’re fine for now.

Sweden 1500 AD
2 Settlers -> 4 Settlers
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 4 Workers
1 Galleon
1 Galleas
1 Workboat
1 Karolin
2 Maceman
2 Heavy Crossbowman
4 Longbows

Netherlands 1580 AD
2 Settlers
4 Warriors
… a few turns later 4 Workers
2 Galleon
1 Workboat
3 Musketman
3 Heavy Crossbowman
3 Longbows

I will start coding some tome tomorrow, so people can start commenting.

One note: Arabia starts with 10 Ghazi and according to you it is OK, while Bulgaria starting with 10 Konniks is too much :)

Ghazi is currently second level horse unit, strength of 8. 10 of those can simply mow over Byzantium much more than 10 Konniks (strength 6). I am not sure if Arabia needs more than 3 of those, or maybe even none, just 4 horse archers.

One note to the Kaiser is that some of the later civs will have independent and neighboring cities flip to them.

One thing I noticed was that while Byzantium has a bazillion cities, there was zero infrastructure and I've built workers first thing in most of my cities. May I suggest that roads be prebuilt throughout most of Europe (probably exclude Russia, Scotland, Wales, Scandinavia, and northeastern Europe), and some other improvements around Italy, Iberia, Byzantium, the Levant, Africa and southern France? In addition to being more realistic, this will help Arabia with its Africa campaign and Bulgaria with its thing.

Map changes take a lot of time to code, I would rather wait for a more final version of the map with resources and before we put improvement. Otherwise you are right, Byzantium does have an infrastructure problem. Possibly we could patch the problem temporarily by introducing some starting workers.

Where might one find this pretty atlas?

http://civ4.technologyresourcesgroup.com/

I will start coding some tome tomorrow, so people can start commenting.

One note: Arabia starts with 10 Ghazi and according to you it is OK, while Bulgaria starting with 10 Konniks is too much :)

Ghazi is currently second level horse unit, strength of 8. 10 of those can simply mow over Byzantium much more than 10 Konniks (strength 6). I am not sure if Arabia needs more than 3 of those, or maybe even none, just 4 horse archers.

I think Arabia needs to be toned down too now that you've mentioned that. I thought the Arabia - Byzantium two superpower fight was part of the early plan, with Byzantium usually fading out. But if they have that many Ghazi, than a human player could simply bulldoze Byzantium.

Check out my screenshot. I did no unit editing to achieve it, I just attacked with what I started with. I also had enough left over to take at least two more cities while still maintaining defensible borders. It's only 700 AD in that shot - the only time delay from the Bulgaria spawn was the time it took to get my armies to their cities. I don't think we want Bulgaria to be so overwhelming from the get-go. But actually Arabia could probably be weakened as well, while we're doing this. 3 Ghazi as you suggested, would probably be plenty.


As for the civ flipping. I went through and played the spawn points for every civilization from Burgundy to the Netherlands (except for Arabia - clearly a mistake). The only time I had a civ flip was with the Arabia spawn, England spawn, and Turkey spawn. Although you might be referring to in later versions, in which case you're right. In the mean time though, Hungary, Austria, Moscow, Swedes, and to a lesser extent, Germany) really don't get going as much as they need to in order to be able to compete with Byzantium, Arabia, Bulgaria, and the Iberian peninsula civs. This is especially true for Moskovites who get totally outsettled by the Kiev Russians more often than not and for the Hungarians, who get a really slow start relative to their powerful neighbors By the time the Hungarians spawn, the Bulgarians are usually up to 4 or 5 cities.

And since I mentioned Turkey. They start with a MASSIVE army, at least in the iteration I ran. I haven't gone back because they take 30 minutes to load from scratch, but they had easily 20 military units. I don't know if they need to be toned down though, because in most games I've seen Turkey still gets overshadowed by Arabia. That might be the AI not being aggressive enough, though. Not sure what the solution to that problem is.

Oh, and yeah - Burgundy and the Franks are always weak, even when one of them conquers the entire region. I think it might be tech-tree related, but I'm not sure. Whatever the case, their scores are usually half the next-to-lowest in the list, usually with less than one-fifth of Arabia's score, the latter of which is always the superpower in both tech and size from what I have seen.

But again, that stuff can get fine-tuned out. In the mean time, I really appreciate whoever codes in these units. They'll go a long way towards more balanced play, especially with the extra Settlers.

Something else to consider in suggesting starting units is the unique nature of the Cordoba start. Historically, it began in 711 with the landing of Tarik's army of Arabs and Berbers from Tangier. I think we decided a long time ago that they should start in both places. One way would be to start them as they are now, flipping Tangier when they found Cordoba, which seems backward to me.
My idea is for them to start with Tangier (swordsman, archer, missionary, worker, 1 Berber cavalry). With a small army of Berber cavalry(4), 2 missionaries, 1 galley on the south coast. On turn 2 an independent Cordoba and Seville flips to them with Cordoba becoming the capitol (1 archer, 1 swordsman, 1 worker in each). The 4 Berbers would then have the choice of conquering either an independent Valencia or Toledo. Spain would then have to start strong enough to prevent being taken over too quickly (ie. 2 settlers, 2 missionaries, 2 swordsmen, 4 archers). To me this would be the best way to simulate history without either side being being too overpowered.
Something like in the screenshots. What does everyone think?

Something else to consider in suggesting starting units is the unique nature of the Cordoba start. Historically, it began in 711 with the landing of Tarik's army of Arabs and Berbers from Tangier. I think we decided a long time ago that they should start in both places. One way would be to start them as they are now, flipping Tangier when they found Cordoba, which seems backward to me.
My idea is for them to start with Tangier (swordsman, archer, missionary, worker, 1 Berber cavalry). With a small army of Berber cavalry(4), 2 missionaries, 1 galley on the south coast. On turn 2 an independent Cordoba and Seville flips to them with Cordoba becoming the capitol (1 archer, 1 swordsman, 1 worker in each). The 4 Berbers would then have the choice of conquering either an independent Valencia or Toledo. Spain would then have to start strong enough to prevent being taken over too quickly (ie. 2 settlers, 2 missionaries, 2 swordsmen, 4 archers). To me this would be the best way to simulate history without either side being being too overpowered.
Something like in the screenshots. What does everyone think?

I think it's a cool idea, personally. More historically accurate - a little bit more interesting than a standard start.

A few concerns: From what I've heard, coding the independent civs is pretty time-consuming though so it might have to wait. From a gameplay standpoint, I have a few questions about balance. Cordoba already tends to score better than Spain - letting them start with three cities in comparison to Spain's two would probably make that imbalance even worse. Also that would mean the Cordoban capital would be in Africa, which might not fit the civ's expansion. Finally, does that affect any of Cordoba's current UHV requirements?

I think it's a cool idea, personally. More historically accurate - a little bit more interesting than a standard start.

A few concerns: From what I've heard, coding the independent civs is pretty time-consuming though so it might have to wait. From a gameplay standpoint, I have a few questions about balance. Cordoba already tends to score better than Spain - letting them start with three cities in comparison to Spain's two would probably make that imbalance even worse. Also that would mean the Cordoban capital would be in Africa, which might not fit the civ's expansion. Finally, does that affect any of Cordoba's current UHV requirements?

I think what we figured when first talked about it was that there would be several independents in Spain ie. Toledo, Valencia, Zaragoza and Barcelona. And maybe a barb La Coruna and Pamplona which would both flip to Spain at the start after several turns. So they'd soon have 4 cities. As would Cordoba after it conquered Toledo for example. I may be wrong but I don't think it would be hard to code a capitol switch from Tangier to Cordoba. I'm sure I've seen that in RFC. But 3Miro can decide if its doable. As per the UHV requirements I don't think it would have any effect IMO.

Once the capitol of a nation is set, it is set. Changing it arbitrarily would be hard to code and would cause all sorts of potential problems. We would have to consider things like "what if Burgundy destroys Cordoba city before the spawn" and so on. RFC convention is that the capitol is the the starting location with the capitol city being founded on turn 1 (i.e. China 600AD).

If we try to be that accurate in terms of gameplay, we should do that for other civs, such as Bulgaria. The problem is that the AI never handles such things correctly. Giving the AI an Army in Africa would mean that they would probably not move that to Europe. Coding specific behavior from the AI cause other problems, mainly the possibilities for abuse. I would leave the Cordoban problem for now, we may come back to it when the game is in a more complete state and we can afford to experiment.

For the starting units, Bulgaria was never meant to start that strong. I put the 10 Konniks there when I was doing some testing and at that time Byzantium had Longbowman.

The massive Turkish army that people mention is actually Byzantine army that flips over to the new nation. It cannot be "toned down".

What we can do however, is to add units at a later turn. So if in turn 3, a settler appears at Tangier and founds a city or an independent Tangier flips, then the problem is solved. Right? Just trying to make it as accurate as possible. Unfortunately the AI never likes to cross the water and found a city there. I've never seen them found any cities in North Africa.

We can make indep cities in NA and let them flip, that is actually easy. We will do that when we get a list of independents (and code it).

We can make indep cities in NA and let them flip, that is actually easy. We will do that when we get a list of independents (and code it).

OK. There's always the map of indys on the wiki. I remember we were going to reduce the ones in the East esp. Can we use that? If not I can do one as a World Builder save or on excel micro if you like. Would that help?

It would be better if you make a list:
City name, (x,y) coordinates (get those from excel), year of appearance. i.e.

Belgrade, (40,80), 900 (turn 100). I made the coordinates and year up, but you see the point. It would be the easiest to code later.

It would be better if you make a list:
City name, (x,y) coordinates (get those from excel), year of appearance. i.e.

Belgrade, (40,80), 900 (turn 100). I made the coordinates and year up, but you see the point. It would be the easiest to code later.

OK. I've started putting them on an excel map for now. I'll send you a list when I'm finished. One question though. Wasn't there some problem a while back about the actual location being 1 tile different from the excel location due to counting 0 as 1 or something? I'm using the excel map from the wiki.

Look at the top row and left most column on the excel file. Those should count something like 0, 1, 2, 3, (left to right for the top row and bottom to top for the left column), those are the correct coordinates and that is what I want you to give me. There was a problem with the city name maps, when people were using some tool to enter them, the results were off by a tile.

BTW I've just been trying for a UHV victory as Bulgaria. I got the monasteries and cathedrals very early and thought I had control of all the required area incl. Macedonia and Greece before taking Constantinople. Took me ages to find the name Misia in Wiki as apparently there isn't a province by that name anymore. Only on ancient maps. It looks like it's the area south and west of the Danube. Is that right?
And does control count if your vassal has a city on the border? Anyway, I conquered Constantinople just before 1400AD but in 1404 it was still saying "Not Yet" for that condition. It's not saying I've failed to do it. Is it saying its not 1400 yet? I'm posting an earlier auto-save and a screenshot. Maybe you can figure it out.

I am getting a similar problm with the first English UHV condition- saying not yet after the deadline has passed forcontrol of UK and 1 city in France. Also, somebody(either Arabs or Bulgaria) reached the industrial age around 1550. Save game attached

OK. I've started putting them on an excel map for now. I'll send you a list when I'm finished. One question though. Wasn't there some problem a while back about the actual location being 1 tile different from the excel location due to counting 0 as 1 or something? I'm using the excel map from the wiki.

I've always done it by flagging the tile in WB, going into notepad, and searching for the term to get the coordinates. I didn't do any of the settler maps, but I see no reason that this shouldn't work.

donbot, you have to send the savegame 3 - 4 turns before the 1600AD. Exactly at 1600AD the code should check for the victory, that is where something goes wrong and it is virtually impossible to check afterwards.

For anyone playtesting, there is a file in your My Documents\My Games\Beyond the Sword\Log folder, it is called PythonErr.log. If at any point of time you see it as having anything in it (i.e. not empty with size 0), please post it. It means the program encountered an error and the file would tell me where the problem is.

...

For the starting units, Bulgaria was never meant to start that strong. I put the 10 Konniks there when I was doing some testing and at that time Byzantium had Longbowman.

The massive Turkish army that people mention is actually Byzantine army that flips over to the new nation. It cannot be "toned down".

Sounds good. If it's a flip army, then they probably need it. And hey, I never met any of the unit testing to come across as criticism. I know that ya'll had more important concerns at that point, like UHVs. I was just explaining to someone else why I suggested lowering the number to 4. :)

donbot, you have to send the savegame 3 - 4 turns before the 1600AD. Exactly at 1600AD the code should check for the victory, that is where something goes wrong and it is virtually impossible to check afterwards.

For anyone playtesting, there is a file in your My Documents\My Games\Beyond the Sword\Log folder, it is called PythonErr.log. If at any point of time you see it as having anything in it (i.e. not empty with size 0), please post it. It means the program encountered an error and the file would tell me where the problem is.

Sorry, forgot you needed an earlier save. I have attached the autosave from AD1588 and also my error log

Edit: When I try to attach the PythonErr file, I am told it is an invalid file to attach

no files attached, anyway try it on the new version first (savegame should load fine)

no files attached, anyway try it on the new version first (savegame should load fine)

No difference on the latest version

python error files need to be zipped or rared to attach. Anyway I will look at the problem.

England problem is fixed (for the next version).

In my latest game (new test version) everyone seems fairly well balanced except for Burgundy and Moscow. The latter will be much better when the Russian indies and barbs are added. But Burgundy needs a real boost in flipped cities as France seems overpowered now. We'll need to reposition Milan to accomodate Pisa, Firenze and maybe Verona. I'll suggest some new coordinates with other fixes on the other thread. Here is a screenshot.

In my latest game (new test version) everyone seems fairly well balanced except for Burgundy and Moscow. The latter will be much better when the Russian indies and barbs are added. But Burgundy needs a real boost in flipped cities as France seems overpowered now. We'll need to reposition Milan to accomodate Pisa, Firenze and maybe Verona. I'll suggest some new coordinates with other fixes on the other thread. Here is a screenshot.

France isn't overpowered - just look at that tiny sliver of a score instead of the map. They might have lots of cities, but they're getting dominated in score (presumably because they can't keep up their research.) But I do like the idea of letting Burgundy have some flipped cities.

Would it be possibly to give France and Burgundy libraries on their start in the next version, just to see if it helps? I know that's a ridiculously good unit to start with, but the extra cities isn't addressing the real imbalance issue which is research. Maybe if they start with libraries they wouldn't be so pathetic.

I like the city flips but I'm worried about their proximity to one another. Then again, that's how all the AI players seem to found cities, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Now the game feels like RFC!

I suffered my first plague in Poland in 1338. Interestingly enough the plagues seem worse than in standard RFC. As word spread through Europe of the devastating black death, my 6 workers fled to the safety (or so they thought) of Warsaw.

When plague struck, one was killed instantly, yet ALL other units in the city were affected by it and forced to heal.

As there are fewer resources and aqueducts were pushed back to later times, it looks like the plagues may hurt more than we are used to.

Now the game feels like RFC!

I suffered my first plague in Poland in 1338. Interestingly enough the plagues seem worse than in standard RFC. As word spread through Europe of the devastating black death, my 6 workers fled to the safety (or so they thought) of Warsaw.

When plague struck, one was killed instantly, yet ALL other units in the city were affected by it and forced to heal.

As there are fewer resources and aqueducts were pushed back to later times, it looks like the plagues may hurt more than we are used to.

Good to hear. Everybody loves a good plague.

Plague is supposed to be bad. Hope you get well soon.

A note for the city list, jessiecat, some of the cities are in real coordinates and smoe are in "fake" excel coordinates. You took the excel row values as opposed to the numbers in the very first column. Anyway I am fixing it slowly as I go.

For the indy cities. What point does it make to have cities flip over to Burgundy and the Franks. Why don't we just give them couple of extra settlers and/or just prebuild small empires like Byzantium. Anyway, I could not get the cities to flip, but I added them. I will post a new version soon and I don't expect to be able to work on the mod during Thanksgiving week. I did not add anything major, just bug fixes so that you guys can somewhat enjoy a semi-playable thing.

The plague was about what I would have expected.Some people died, but it was good to see that the system translated well from version to version.

I hope your new posted version will include the new resources/terrain I posted to the file thread. I actually changed the WBS there too, which might potentially screw up your independent-city work. It would be pretty easy for me to redo that edit in case we have diverged already. I'm going to post some minor bug fixes (just Tech and Unit xml files) now too, to get them into the pre-Thanksgiving patch.

Graphics is now part of the mod, no work is needed on your side.

Okay, my minor changes are posted up now. I'm going to hold off doing anything else until you post a next version.

Argh, scratch that. Those new files were causing a consistent crash later in the game. I'll have to figure out what later though. For now I've just removed the files...

Okay, I just tried playtesting Francia and Burgundy. This time, I decided to play as Francia, to see what all the sucking was about, assuming I can play better than the computer.

I think the reason they're sucking it up is a lack of starting technologies. When the Bulgarians spawn in 648, they have "Calendar, Architecture, Theology, Stirrup, Map Making, and Monasticism." Their score as of founding one city: 293. I'm playing as Francia, and I'm doing much better than Burgundy right now. My score is only 210, Burgundy is at 153. And Bulgaria has a HUGE tech advantage, nevermind the Byzantines and Arabs. My only techs as of now are Theology, Monasticism, and 5 turns shy of music. That's 545 tech points compared to 597. Doesn't sound like too much, although when you consider the limitations I had on what I could build at the startup, the reality is a little bit more debilitating. And based on what Burgundy is doing, it seems like the lack of building choices (due to lack of starting techs) leads them to mass produce units, which slows down their research, which means a lack of building choices, which means more units. It's a vicious cycle.

By turn 744, the gap had widened. Only a few turns after their start, Cordoba had: Calendar, Architecture, Theology, Manorialism, Stirrup, Engineering, Herbal Medicines, Map Making, Literature, Code of Laws, and Lateen Sails.

I had Theology, Manorialism, Monasticism, Music, and Literature. I think Lateen Sails alone is worth more than all of my techs combined.

Now Cordoba is more advanced in technologies than Spain, reflected the more advanced Moor learning. But I can see even if I focus on trying to keep up with technology and ignore aggression based expansion, I'm going to have a very difficult time. The computer AI is even worse.

Therefore, I propose both Francia and Burgundy start with Calendar, Architecture, and Theology. We can playtest that and see if it helps them stay more competitive. If they do better but still get dominated by later civs, than maybe we add a few more techs. If it doesn't make a difference, we go back to the drawing board.

Final note: if Burgundy gets two cities on the flip, I think they will dominate Francia unless Francia starts with two Settlers or at least one city on the flip. France has a slightly better starting position, but I've seen games where Burgundy did just as well under the current version.

If you are building so many units, why don't you expand, i.e. conquer Burgundy. When I play with Burgundy,I always conquer the Franks fast. I don't know if I will be able to compete scientifically over the long run, but it helps initially.

@sedna: a lot of the c++ now uses dynamical memory (i.e. adding/removing nations and changing map size and settlers/war maps can now be done entirely in Python).

The unpleasant result is that in order for things to work, any changes have to be synchronized with Consts.py.

If you are building so many units, why don't you expand, i.e. conquer Burgundy. When I play with Burgundy,I always conquer the Franks fast. I don't know if I will be able to compete scientifically over the long run, but it helps initially.

I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about what the computer does. And in the long run, I don't think it helps - or at least not enough. I've done many Dutch games to see what the balance of power is in the long run, and Francia and Burgundy always remain painfully far behind in technology. I think a rough initial start is the main cause, because both have plenty of room to expand, and potentially conquer the other.

@3Miro.

Ah. That makes sense with the crash I was having. That means the terrain/resources defined in the latest Consts.py are also out of sync/date because I forgot to update that file.

well, those are not a problem for now. I was not using anything that involves resources, since I knew they would be redone. Anything that involves techs, units and buildings has to be in sync.

If Kiev have to build Orthodox buildings as part of their UHV, should they not start with Orthodox missionaries?

They are close enough to the Byzantines. Besides, we may change the UHV to "build any monasteries". Have you had problems obtaining Orthodoxy?

On independent cities:



I just had the opportunity to look at the updated map for the first time, and I'm kind of shocked by the number of independents at the initial spawn.

Just a reminder of basic principles:

-A city which is founded or in place on turn 1 will continue to grow for the entire game. It will also continue to accumulate culture for the entire game, or at least when it begins to accumulate culture. For a city like Athens or Rome or Alexandria, this is entirely appropriate. For a city like Kharkov or Ajacco, it is not.

-Keep in mind that it is possible to have independent cities spawn at various concrete dates. If it is essential that a civ flip a given city upon its spawn, have it show up a turn or two before then. In some cases, it may be advisable to have cities in place for longer periods of time, but we're likely to screw up the balance of things if we have many strong independents in place before any of the civs show up.

-Somehow, after worrying that the Byzantines had too many cities and were too powerful, we added more Byzantine cities. We should probably remove Rhodes as discussed and eliminate the town furthest NW.

-In some cases, spacing will be more important than absolute geographic accuracy. Some corrections to the Italian map have already been suggested; I'd suggest some major changes to the French map too. The city currently labeled Caen is on the wrong side of Paris - it's closer to Cherbourg. The actual Caen is in Normandy, W-NW of Paris. Toulouse should be moved two tiles east, and Nantes isn't coastal (although it might be better to keep it that way in order to represent the city's river port history and to keep the city from being considerably less useful).

-Freiburg isn't old enough to be in the initial spawn. I vote for Mainz, Worms, or Trier, all of which are older and more important.

-Graz, the Russian cities, and a couple of others are probably not old enough for initial inclusion.


I'll post a map tomorrow with resources updated, and possibly with independent city flags with dates.

On independent cities:



I just had the opportunity to look at the updated map for the first time, and I'm kind of shocked.

Just a reminder of basic principles:

-A city which is founded or in place on turn 1 will continue to grow for the entire game. It will also continue to accumulate culture for the entire game, or at least when it begins to accumulate culture. For a city like Athens or Rome or Alexandria, this is entirely appropriate. For a city like Kharkov or Ajacco, it is not.

-Keep in mind that it is possible to have independent cities spawn at various concrete dates. If it is essential that a civ flip a given city upon its spawn, have it show up a turn or two before then. In some cases, it may be advisable to have cities in place for longer periods of time, but we're likely to screw up the balance of things if we have many strong independents in place before any of the civs show up.

-Somehow, after worrying that the Byzantines had too many cities and were too powerful, we added more Byzantine cities. We should probably remove Rhodes as discussed and eliminate the town furthest NW.

-In some cases, spacing will be more important than absolute geographic accuracy. Some corrections to the Italian map have already been suggested; I'd suggest some major changes to the French map too. The city currently labeled Caen is on the wrong side of Paris - it's closer to Cherbourg. The actual Caen is in Normandy, W-NW of Paris. Toulouse should be moved two tiles east, and Nantes isn't coastal (although it might be better to keep it that way in order to represent the city's river port history and to keep the city from being considerably less useful).

-Freiburg isn't old enough to be in the initial spawn. I vote for Mainz, Worms, or Trier, all of which are older and more important.



I'll post a map tomorrow with resources updated, and possibly with independent city flags with dates.

I think Genoa is getting crowded out by the Independents.

I think Genoa is getting crowded out by the Independents.

There's nothing to stop Genoa from conquering Florence or Milan. I agree with st. lucjifers' main points but I should point out that I had Kharkov and Rostov spawning later. It was 3Miro who added a couple of early indies that I hadn't included. I do agree about Freiburg however. I had it as Basle, one tile to the west.I've also addressed the misplacement of some cities and suggested their correct locations in the bugs and fixes thread.

They are close enough to the Byzantines. Besides, we may change the UHV to "build any monasteries". Have you had problems obtaining Orthodoxy?

With no open borders with Bulgaria I didnt receive Orthodoxy by 1100 when I added a missionary , and 2 other cities became islamic

There's nothing to stop Genoa from conquering Florence or Milan. I agree with st. lucjifers' main points but I should point out that I had Kharkov and Rostov spawning later. It was 3Miro who added a couple of early indies that I hadn't included. I do agree about Freiburg however. I had it as Basle, one tile to the west.I've also addressed the misplacement of some cities and suggested their correct locations in the bugs and fixes thread.

I only followed your list, however, the list changed couple of times. Make a "finalized" list and post it somewhere to make sure we have no mistakes.

Just downloaded the last version of the mod, and tried to play as Venice.
1) How gosh can Venetians only found Cumae as second city (eg for the 1N-1NW square Chioggia could be a better name)?
2) Opened the Wordbuilder to take a look at the independents spread (and at other civs as well). And noticed that:
a) Burgudians have built Tours where actually Girona is. I don't think Catalunya should be a priority for Burgudian Settlers...:rolleyes:
b) Italy is crowded with Independents, compared to other world areas. I would prefer an Italy full of competitive nations. The trade between these nations was actually a reason why Italians were the first nation to enter Renaissance.
c) Aix-La-Chappelle would be a good Independent as well as Augsburg and perhaps Danzig, instead of Graz
d) What about adding an Independent in Scandinavia?
e) I don't know if what the picture shows is possible or a bug but it was something that really happened as I was waiting for my start year

I only followed your list, however, the list changed couple of times. Make a "finalized" list and post it somewhere to make sure we have no mistakes.

I stand corrected. I forgot I had Kharkov and Kherson spawning in 500AD. Sorry too about the mix-up over coordinates. I posted earler with a some screenshots of proposed alterations (post 19, bugs and fixes thread). Did you see that? Anyway, Italy is fine now with where you put Milan. So if you could put Florence on the tile below the iron that would be perfect. I'll try to do a new list of what remains to be done. Hope I get the coordinates right this time.

I've finally had a chance to play a test game or two. Just thought I'd post a cute screen shot of the barbs building a huge long road out into the desert. Where is he going?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=195051&stc=1&d=1227380374

Ah yes, to Tripoli, where another diligent barb worker is building west. Also, I did not know barbs could get great people, but there was a barb great merchant wandering in the Sahara.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=195052&stc=1&d=1227380374

micbic@ Danzig isn't an independent city? IMO that's a big miss, it was a very important city. Or maybe it's meant to be founded by Poland or Germany...

OT: Post 3,333 :dance:

micbic@ Danzig isn't an independent city? IMO that's a big miss, it was a very important city. Or maybe it's meant to be founded by Poland or Germany...

OT: Post 3,333 :dance:

It's in as Gdansk.



Sedna, I'm not sure what happened the first time around, but opening a new game and the WB, ocean is available. Sorry for the confusion.

OK then. Gdansk is in.
When does it spawn?

I just started a game as England, and France had actually founded a city in southern England before I spawned!

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/3084/englandfrancegk8.png (http://imageshack.us)

Either France needs a settler map for the area, or they should be absolutely forbidden from settling it.

Edit: Also, a site in lower Scotland north of the Corn on a Moor appears to not have a name in the English settler map. It should probably be Edinburgh.

OK then. Gdansk is in.
When does it spawn?

Its on the list to spawn in 800AD (Turn 76) but it'd probably flip to Poland when it spawns
in 970 AD. Is that about right?

Observations from playing my first game (as Burgundy)

-We may want to lower the bonus for mounted infantry against archers, or make them more expensive to build. I had no trouble conquering all of the independents in France, Barcelona, and Lombardy using only mounted infantry within the first 20-30 turns.
-As we have a number of food/health resources already, I'm going to suggest moving sheep into the luxury resource category to represent wool. They can still give a food bonus, but there are a lot of food bonuses on the map.
-Cities are growing big early, in part because there isn't a whole lot of other stuff to do with the food.
-There really isn't very much to build, particularly in the early game - and the fact that building culture, wealth, and research are available late makes it really tough for the early civs, as there's no way to use their production effectively - I ended up building and deleting units rather than continually expanding.
-We might consider moving open borders up a little earlier for stability's sake.
-The Norse are beginning to settle Scania - they had Kalmar and something else when the Polish spawned.
-While I encountered some stability issues, I never lost more than one city per turn to independence, with no full collapses.

Observations from playing my first game (as Burgundy)

-We may want to lower the bonus for mounted infantry against archers, or make them more expensive to build. I had no trouble conquering all of the independents in France, Barcelona, and Lombardy using only mounted infantry within the first 20-30 turns.
-As we have a number of food/health resources already, I'm going to suggest moving sheep into the luxury resource category to represent wool. They can still give a food bonus, but there are a lot of food bonuses on the map.
-Cities are growing big early, in part because there isn't a whole lot of other stuff to do with the food.
-There really isn't very much to build, particularly in the early game - and the fact that building culture, wealth, and research are available late makes it really tough for the early civs, as there's no way to use their production effectively - I ended up building and deleting units rather than continually expanding.
-We might consider moving open borders up a little earlier for stability's sake.
-The Norse are beginning to settle Scania - they had Kalmar and something else when the Polish spawned.
-While I encountered some stability issues, I never lost more than one city per turn to independence, with no full collapses.

A quick report on my game as the Norse. I loaded your WB save with the changes but I've got a couple of odd things happen. With WB I added Tonsberg as an indie and founded Aarhus. Turn 2 Tonsberg flips. But as I'm exploring with my galley I notice I can't enter ocean tiles. So much for the UP. It'll be impossible to do the UHVs without it. Then when I found my first city in England its called Birka. It should be Yorvik. It was the last time I played. And again the French have already founded a city south of London's spot.
What's going on?

EDIT I just tried it with the last test version before your changes. Its not your file that's the problem.
Something seems to have been lost in the last test release. Like the Norse UP for instance.

Well I guess there is something wrong with the Norse UHV of revealing all ocean tiles. And ass jessiecat says I can't enter ocean tiles, so the Norse UP doesn't work either.

Well I guess there is something wrong with the Norse UHV of revealing all ocean tiles. And ass jessiecat says I can't enter ocean tiles, so the Norse UP doesn't work either.

As I said. It's only since the latest test version. It was working before.

@sedna 17. Any ideas about why some things might have changed?:confused:

A quick report on my game as the Norse. I loaded your WB save with the changes but I've got a couple of odd things happen. With WB I added Tonsberg as an indie and founded Aarhus. Turn 2 Tonsberg flips. But as I'm exploring with my galley I notice I can't enter ocean tiles. So much for the UP. It'll be impossible to do the UHVs without it. Then when I found my first city in England its called Birka. It should be Yorvik. It was the last time I played. And again the French have already founded a city south of London's spot.
What's going on?

EDIT I just tried it with the last test version before your changes. Its not your file that's the problem.
Something seems to have been lost in the last test release. Like the Norse UP for instance.

The loss of the UP probably has to do with the addition of the new terrain types, which screws the ordering. I'll have to investigate a little more to see if this is something I can fix or if we need to wait for 3Miro. The map changes probably necessitate some modification to the names maps. The French settler map actually tells them to settle in southern England -- that's an attempt to make sure they fight. See here: http://wikirhye.wikidot.com/rfce-france. Possibly this would be more appropriate for the war map though.

A quick report on my game as the Norse. I loaded your WB save with the changes but I've got a couple of odd things happen. With WB I added Tonsberg as an indie and founded Aarhus. Turn 2 Tonsberg flips. But as I'm exploring with my galley I notice I can't enter ocean tiles. So much for the UP. It'll be impossible to do the UHVs without it. Then when I found my first city in England its called Birka. It should be Yorvik. It was the last time I played. And again the French have already founded a city south of London's spot.
What's going on?


As the coastline has been changed, I imagine I messed up the settler maps a bit too - I think the tile on which you founded Birka was previously land.

Sorry for the inconvenience there - I think those are the last coastline/mountain changes to be made. If anyone feels differently/strongly about it, they had better have a very compelling argument. :D

I forgot to add ocean tiles to the Mediterranean and Black Sea. That's another item on the list of things to correct today.

I saw many comments about games played as Norse, so decided to give it a go at Monarch.

1) I also encountered the problem with the UHV, with the third condition given from startgame.
2) Built Odense, took the Galley to Scotland and built Edinburgh, then two other cities to the north. First UHV completed.
3) Meanwhile built Kobenhagen and Skagen. At 1000 AD I realized that to settle Iceland, I had to build a Carrack, and research Shipbuilding which was 12 techs far (Optics, 8 more, and itself). Seemt impossible so I stopped the game.

Other observations:

1) Bulgaria always captures the Independents in Russia before the spawns. Perhaps Rostov should spawn to Kiev
2) No, no Gdansk city existed in my map.
3) Are both Vitoria and San Sebastian initial Independents? Asking because they are at adjacent tiles
4) Much work needed in Italian, Russian and Ukrainian city name maps
5) Believe that generally the Iceland city is very difficult to build
6) Where can I get the new map resources from?:confused:

As the coastline has been changed, I imagine I messed up the settler maps a bit too - I think the tile on which you founded Birka was previously land.

Sorry for the inconvenience there - I think those are the last coastline/mountain changes to be made. If anyone feels differently/strongly about it, they had better have a very compelling argument. :D

I forgot to add ocean tiles to the Mediterranean and Black Sea. That's another item on the list of things to correct today.

I think you mean that Birka was on a tile that was previously sea.

I noticed you're going to add some resources to Iberia. I'd like to offer some input on that, if I may, on the appropriate thread.
Also, did you see my latest list of proposed indies to add? I'd like your input on that. (see files thread).

Many of the issues are coming from the map and settlers map. We need to finalize the map and then recheck all the city name and settler's map.

For the Norse problem, I should have coded it better, but the UHV is that they should see all number 6 terrain on the map. #6 was Ocean, I guess it has changed now. I will fix it for the next version.

I don't expect to be able to work during the Thanksgiving week. Any changes on my part would have to wait.

Many of the issues are coming from the map and settlers map. We need to finalize the map and then recheck all the city name and settler's map.

For the Norse problem, I should have coded it better, but the UHV is that they should see all number 6 terrain on the map. #6 was Ocean, I guess it has changed now. I will fix it for the next version.

I don't expect to be able to work during the Thanksgiving week. Any changes on my part would have to wait.

No worries -- enjoy your Thanksgiving break. If you put terrain types after the ocean/coast they get drawn "underwater" if you will, so that's why Moorland had to come earlier and mess up the numbering system. I guess the cleanest approach is to reference Consts.py

The newest patch is looking really good! Franzia appears to be fixed now that tech trading is enabled.

On the downside, multiple civs completed the tech tree by the time I started as the Dutch. Are there plans to add more technologies and extend the timeline?

Just started a new game; again the French have settled southern England. This is just stupid, and England should be removed entirely from the French settler map.

Also, Burgundy is settling the lowlands (as it should), but doesn't have a city name map for the area; Poitiers was founded on the future site of Amsterdam.

Finally, the Byzantines founded "Thessalonica" two tiles south of Hadrianopolis--despite the correctly named Thessaloniki existing a full five tiles to the west. The site should be Xanthi. Another Byzantine naming comment, although less of an issue: the Byzantiens founded "Aidin"; while the Turkish name is Aydin, under the Byzantines the city was called Tralles.

Just started a new game; again the French have settled southern England. This is just stupid, and England should be removed entirely from the French settler map.

Also, Burgundy is settling the lowlands (as it should), but doesn't have a city name map for the area; Poitiers was founded on the future site of Amsterdam.

Finally, the Byzantines founded "Thessalonica" two tiles south of Hadrianopolis--despite the correctly named Thessaloniki existing a full five tiles to the west. The site should be Xanthi. Another Byzantine naming comment, although less of an issue: the Byzantiens founded "Aidin"; while the Turkish name is Aydin, under the Byzantines the city was called Tralles.

Yeah, I've noticed the French are consistently settling England as well. It doesn't bother me too much, except that the England flip zone is so small that the French end up controlling half the island.

I ran two Dutch starts (because it allows you to see what happens late in the game) and the same thing happened both times.

Maybe the English flip zone should just be expanded. That might take care of the problem.

@Verily. Thanks for your city name reports. We know this maps are still incomplete. I will hopefully shortly be providing an improved mechanism by which people can contribute fixed name maps.

@KaiserBenjamin. I will remove southern England from the French settler map. As for the late game, we may chose to put in some new techs. We may just come up with some way to slow down civs. I'm currently experimenting with some ways to slow down the pace of development early on. A couple thoughts: increase health penalty to keep cities small, slow down the rate at which workers work. Large barb invasions (Mongols!), of course, have yet to be added, and should slow things down.

What is the Norse UP? It is listed as "The Power of the Sea: All Naval units can enter ocean squares", yet my galleys can't enter ocean squares.

Has it changed, as I recall it working several units ago.

What is the Norse UP? It is listed as "The Power of the Sea: All Naval units can enter ocean squares", yet my galleys can't enter ocean squares.

Has it changed, as I recall it working several units ago.

Broken by the introduction of moorland. On the "to-fix" list, but can only be fixed by 3Miro.

We may need to redo some of the settler maps and/or starting points, to ensure that civs start at the right places. Currently, the Austrian start (next to Salzburg) is listed as Zara, Hungary starts at Eger, Kiev starts at Khabarovsk, and Poland starts at Warsawa. While the last one isn't unintentional, we had intended to move the Polish start to Krakow for purposes of historical accuracy. It's definitely better at Warsawa for geographic balance, so I'm fine with not moving it.

Edit: Upon using WB to settle the entire Austrian area, I can't find Wien, Graz, Salzburg, Prague, or any other Austrian city I recognize. Something is probably wrong here. I do find Bonn, Bochum, Duisburg, and Magdeburg, so things aren't totally hopeless.

Cities with holes in the settler map (in their close area) include Moscow, Kiev, and maybe others.

Some civs are spreading admirably - in the last game I started as Austria, Cordoba had a city on one of the Balearic islands and several in Africa, Arabia was spreading west across the Maghreb, and even the Byzantines had filled in Greece. A few other civs, Hungary and Spain in particular, didn't spread very much at all and tended to build up cities within two tiles of each other. Spain had a lot of cities, but many of them were superfluous.

Stability issues seem to have subsided considerably - no civs had collapsed by the date of the Austrian spawn, although many had lost cities to independence.

Many civs need larger core areas. Germany should flip Augsburg (which should ideally keep its name - Munich is more of a modern city); Burgundy should flip Lyon; France should flip Tours; England should flip everything south and east of Wales and perhaps Calais (rather than Caen - this makes more sense as core areas have to be rectangles?), and Venice and Genoa should possibly flip a city each.

Load times between turns in the mid to late game are fairly long, though not unplayable by any means. It does mean that loading a late civ like Sweden or the Dutch is a long (30 minutes+) wait.

We may need to redo some of the settler maps and/or starting points, to ensure that civs start at the right places. Currently, the Austrian start (next to Salzburg) is listed as Zara, Hungary starts at Eger, Kiev starts at Khabarovsk, and Poland starts at Warsawa. While the last one isn't unintentional, we had intended to move the Polish start to Krakow for purposes of historical accuracy. It's definitely better at Warsawa for geographic balance, so I'm fine with not moving it.

Edit: Upon using WB to settle the entire Austrian area, I can't find Wien, Graz, Salzburg, Prague, or any other Austrian city I recognize. Something is probably wrong here. I do find Bonn, Bochum, Duisburg, and Magdeburg, so things aren't totally hopeless.

Cities with holes in the settler map (in their close area) include Moscow, Kiev, and maybe others.

Some civs are spreading admirably - in the last game I started as Austria, Cordoba had a city on one of the Balearic islands and several in Africa, Arabia was spreading west across the Maghreb, and even the Byzantines had filled in Greece. A few other civs, Hungary and Spain in particular, didn't spread very much at all and tended to build up cities within two tiles of each other. Spain had a lot of cities, but many of them were superfluous.

Stability issues seem to have subsided considerably - no civs had collapsed by the date of the Austrian spawn, although many had lost cities to independence.

Many civs need larger core areas. Germany should flip Augsburg (which should ideally keep its name - Munich is more of a modern city); Burgundy should flip Lyon; France should flip Tours; England should flip everything south and east of Wales and perhaps Calais (rather than Caen - this makes more sense as core areas have to be rectangles?), and Venice and Genoa should possibly flip a city each.

Load times between turns in the mid to late game are fairly long, though not unplayable by any means. It does mean that loading a late civ like Sweden or the Dutch is a long (30 minutes+) wait.

Do you think Austria's flip zone should be expanded? I've found they get rather crowded out by the other civs.

Playing a game as Genoa. I notice that they are surrounded by VERY powerful independent forces. Since Genoa does NOT have access to copper or iron at the start, the only way to capture Milan and Marseilles is with a stack of catapults and archers. Once I was able to capture Marseilles, I was then subjected to a stack of enemies including 6 crossbows and 7 archers!

One of 2 solutions. Either tone down the independents, or give Genoa access to iron or copper.

Playing a game as Genoa. I notice that they are surrounded by VERY powerful independent forces. Since Genoa does NOT have access to copper or iron at the start, the only way to capture Milan and Marseilles is with a stack of catapults and archers. Once I was able to capture Marseilles, I was then subjected to a stack of enemies including 6 crossbows and 7 archers!

One of 2 solutions. Either tone down the independents, or give Genoa access to iron or copper.

Genoa needs lots of resources. Add what you need thru WB and try it that way. Resources have not been added properly yet. I also think the indies are a bit too productive. That's why they should spawn late, just before Venice I think, not at the start.

Genoa needs lots of resources. Add what you need thru WB and try it that way. Resources have not been added properly yet. I also think the indies are a bit too productive. That's why they should spawn late, just before Venice I think, not at the start.


I agree on both points. Its now 1080 AD and the Indies now have optics (WAY too early).

I also notice that the indies don't always know how to use the new resources. They don't always build the right improvements

I also notice that the indies don't always know how to use the new resources. They don't always build the right improvements

Can you provide more details on this? What are they doing? Do you see the non-indie AI doing the same thing?

What I saw was cottages built on honey, barley and apples in Italy. Other nations seem to be doing OK

Playing a game as Genoa. I notice that they are surrounded by VERY powerful independent forces. Since Genoa does NOT have access to copper or iron at the start, the only way to capture Milan and Marseilles is with a stack of catapults and archers. Once I was able to capture Marseilles, I was then subjected to a stack of enemies including 6 crossbows and 7 archers!

One of 2 solutions. Either tone down the independents, or give Genoa access to iron or copper.

Probably both solutions are necessary. I gave Genoa sulfur for gunpowder units, but that doesn't do much for their start. I'll go back and add iron for both Genoa and Venice - didn't realize I'd missed it.



On flip zones - it doesn't seem like they're working properly in Europe, regardless of size. The Dutch flip an area just big enough to build Maastricht (and after a few turns, nothing else around them opens up), and Venice and Genoa don't flip any of the independents around them.

This may be a question of size rather than whether the flip zone's working or not, but while the computer seems to do ok, the human player doesn't get much or any flip.

Tech rates are quite fast, in part because civs are quite happy to trade techs with each other (and not necessarily just their friends). The independent tech rate probably needs to be slowed to a crawl, as they'll always have a lot of cities providing research (and curiously, don't seem to pay any maintenance penalties for building stacks of 20 archers to wander aimlessly around Rome).

As Genoa Pisa flipped to me right off the bat, but the culture of Milan, Florence and the southern French cities was rather strong. Missing Theaters early is tough...

All I did was add an Iron source just east of Genoa, which made my civ viable.

Seen a few strange messages. Apparently England has capitulated and is now a vassal of England (actually France) and Arabia has now signed a defensive pact with Arabia (actually Kievan Rus).

Observations on starting a game as the Ottomans:
-France and Burgundy have both collapsed. England has taken cities in Normandy and Paris; Spain has taken Burdeos.
-Venice has a city on Corfu and a city on Crete. This is good.
-Genoa has captured Marseilles, Lyon (Valence), Milan, Pisa, and Florence), and appears to be in very strong position. They have not settled anywhere, although the culture from Genova itself covers part of Corsica.
-Portugal is increasingly pushed off the mainland by Spain, but settles the Azores and Canaries regularly.
-The Ottoman flip works.
-Plague hits right at 1300, and sweeps through Bulgaria, Hungary and Venice on schedule.

Very strange situation happened. Playing as Genoa, several cottages (villages actually) changed automatically to apiaries. I'm not sure when it happened, but I noticed that when the villages shrank (due to plague) they switched to apiaries rather than cottages.

Very strange situation happened. Playing as Genoa, several cottages (villages actually) changed automatically to apiaries. I'm not sure when it happened, but I noticed that when the villages shrank (due to plague) they switched to apiaries rather than cottages.

Ah, then I know what the problem is. 'twas an XML ordering problem afterall. I should be able to fix this easily for the next version.

Played as Cordoba on monarch difficulty in the latest testversion.
I must say, the first UHV of Corboda being the largest city in 1000 AD is very easy, with the new added food resources. Got it size 17 with serfdom and farms, Constantinople was 2nd with size 12.
I think Portugal has to start with stronger starting units. By the time they arrived I had heavy crossbowman and knights. They only had 1 crossbowman and some swordsmen.
I converted to Catholisicm instead of Islam because it's much easier. If I converted to islam I would have been the only one in the game. If you make it so that Cordoba can only convert to islam it would be a bit more difficult to win. So maybe that's an option?
France and Burgundy are 2 superpowers as you can see..

And last, what's with the ivory in Iceland:p?

The first UHV as Cordoba is easy now with the food resources. The key to winning the 2nd. is to attack Spain as soon as it spawns. Same with Portugal.
But the 3rd. is not always easy. A lot of other civs have been tech leaders in my games. Getting to Scientific Method first is not always possible.

As far as the ivory on your screenshot. You've never seen a walrus before?:lol:

Just a quick report on my current game as Genoa. I controlled Marseilles, Milano and Sardinia quite early (before 1400) but when it came to 1500 I didn't get the 1st. UHV condition even though I control all three in 1502. I think the UHV is broken somehow. See screenshots below.