I plan to begin implementing new resources and terrain types. This is more XML and art work, but I've learned a lot, and this should be simple.

On resources:

We had a good discussion about which resources to include starting at the end of this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=250322&highlight=sulfur&page=42) page in one of the uber-threads.

Some approximation of the consensus results were posted to the wiki here (http://wikirhye.wikidot.com/rfce-resources).

With the exception of slaves, this list covers all the colonial resources in the proposed colonial projects list by Cornelio posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7418629&postcount=1229). We await a counter-proposal by St. Lucifer, but the resources are unlikely to change.

On Terrain:

Several new terrain types have been proposed.

Swamp: Same as RFC? There are a couple other graphics options available if we wanted to do a slightly different style.
Moors: A not-as-bad-as-tundra cold terrain. We'll have to find/make appropriate graphics.
Dense Forest: Unchoppable forest. Graphics probably just steal the snow-covered conifers.

Am I forgetting anything in either category?

It would be nice to have Potatoes spawn in the 16th century, too, given how essential they were to agriculture in Ireland, Poland, Russia and elsewhere.

Fall from Heaven has a Marsh terrain that might be usable for Swamps instead of the standard RFC graphics; it's a bit mellower in appearance.

Mmm... potatoes. Sounds appropriate as a late spawn.

Onedreamer suggested the FFH marsh as well. Can someone post a picture of it in action? I'm actually sort of space limited on my Windows partition and don't have the ability to run the the big FFH installer .exe installer.

Just a note, it is possible (actually easy) to make it so that different resources appear on the map after some wonder has been build or tech reached. Also (the way it works in RFC) resources can appear by date.

Potatoes could be nice to add for Poland's UHV and to give England a boost.

Re. the wiki list, we have rice spawning about the 15thC. Historically, it was introduced first by the Arabs in the 10thC. and grown extensively in the area of Valencia and the Ebro Valley. The only other important area to grow rice was in the Po Valley between Venice and Verona from the 15thC. I think rice should spawn only in those areas and spawn twice in the above dates.

EDIT I know we have sheep as a health resource, but how can we represent wool which was so important to the English economy as a trade resource throughout the Middle Ages?

It would be nice to have Potatoes spawn in the 16th century, too, given how essential they were to agriculture in Ireland, Poland, Russia and elsewhere.

Fall from Heaven has a Marsh terrain that might be usable for Swamps instead of the standard RFC graphics; it's a bit mellower in appearance.


We talked about adding potatoes during the early days, and there was never really any agreement over whether to put them in or not - are they a colonial resource? But you're certainly right that they're a vital food source. I forgot that we could have resources spawn by year - that's probably the best way to handle it. I'll vote for the inclusion of potatoes also.


I like the RFC marsh graphics fine, but I'd be willing to look at other options.


Sedna, the list of terrain updates that you described is the one that we'd all agreed upon. I think the snow-covered forest graphic is probably fine for dense forest; for moorland, we should probably look for something similar to plains, possibly with scrub brush or with a slightly darker color palette.

The only other important area to grow rice was in the Po Valley between Venice and Verona from the 15thC.

Correction, in Italy rice was cultivated in Sicily since the arab conquest. Then it spread to the Po valley around the 15th, but mainly in Piedmont. Currently almost all rice production in Italy is concentrated here, with Italy being the main producer in Europe.

The thing I don't like about marshes in RFC is that they are a resource. They clutter the resource screen.
Attached screens of FFH's marsh.

EDIT I know we have sheep as a health resource, but how can we represent wool which was so important to the English economy as a trade resource throughout the Middle Ages?

Tailory bulding with provides +5% commerce per sheep resource ?

Re. the wiki list, we have rice spawning about the 15thC. Historically, it was introduced first by the Arabs in the 10thC. and grown extensively in the area of Valencia and the Ebro Valley. The only other important area to grow rice was in the Po Valley between Venice and Verona from the 15thC. I think rice should spawn only in those areas and spawn twice in the above dates.

EDIT I know we have sheep as a health resource, but how can we represent wool which was so important to the English economy as a trade resource throughout the Middle Ages?

We might consider doing one of two things:


The most simple action would be to remove sheep from the health bonus list, and just have them as a trade bonus (albeit one which provided extra food on the map). With the amount of fresh water and forest on the map, removing one common health resource isn't going to cripple anyone. We also have fruit proposed, which fills in an extra health bonus slot. It was replacing bananas, but I think the numbers all work out if we're adding potatoes.


The second option might be to put 'cloth' in as a luxury resource. We've proposed having flax in marshes as a luxury resource, which some people objected to because of how common it is - but if we to were replace wool and flax with cloth, we could cover both linen and wool cloth, keep sheep as a health bonus, and reward some areas that would otherwise be marginally productive (parts of the Netherlands; the Scottish highlands, etc.) Now, this does raise the question of whether we're rewarding places that were primarily production centers over the places where the raw materials were produced - but I'm not sure that's entirely inappropriate, either.

I like your second option. Wool was the powerhouse industry esp. in Norfolk and Scotland which made Britain very wealthy in the 15thC to 17thC. Also very important in the Netherlands and Flanders at this time.
Now we know we can spawn resources at different times, are you OK with rice in Spain and Italy spawning at the times I suggested?

I like the RFC marsh graphics fine, but I'd be willing to look at other options.

Sedna, the list of terrain updates that you described is the one that we'd all agreed upon. I think the snow-covered forest graphic is probably fine for dense forest; for moorland, we should probably look for something similar to plains, possibly with scrub brush or with a slightly darker color palette.

I like that FFH marsh. It's also very similar to the colonization marsh, which has been converted to the appropriate format, see here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=10820. I'll use one of them. Don't worry, it won't be a "resource" anymore.

I'm going to try my hand at making my own moorland. Ideally, it will have hints of heather. Rhye has also said that the new patch will contain "new trees", so we'll have to see what magic he gives us to work with.

Correction, in Italy rice was cultivated in Sicily since the arab conquest. Then it spread to the Po valley around the 15th, but mainly in Piedmont. Currently almost all rice production in Italy is concentrated here, with Italy being the main producer in Europe.

The thing I don't like about marshes in RFC is that they are a resource. They clutter the resource screen.
Attached screens of FFH's marsh.

that's Colonization's marshes. Of course I can't use them in a official CIv4 mod.

Rhye can marshes just be made a base terrain rather than a resource (that's also needed for terraforming) ?

Luckily we're unofficial. A rogue outfit if you will.

So I'm thinking of borrowing the "Fertile Plains" graphics from the Extra Terrain mod (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=297183) for the moorland. Turns out making my own is hard. That and the above referenced swamp looks like this in England and Estonia. The moorland is maybe a bit dark, but lightening or applying color hues is relatively easy.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=194350&stc=1&d=1226771082

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=194351&stc=1&d=1226771082

@onedreamer

Currently marsh is a terrain (like plains), a feature (like forest), and a resource. For our mod anyway, it will only be a terrain (unless I find any good reason why it needs to be a feature).

WOW sedna that looks great.

I really like both pieces of artwork. If they'll let us use them, those seem like they're probably the best choices out there.

the only thing is that those fertile plains seem to be designed to work with a different graphic set.
Marshes may need to be feature in case you want unhealth from them.

the only thing is that those fertile plains seem to be designed to work with a different graphic set.
Marshes may need to be feature in case you want unhealth from them.

That might explain why painting with them in WorldBuilder sometimes yields oddness. Still, since we don't care about random maps at all, and it seems to look fine when I just find-and-replace in the WBS, so I'm inclined to ignore it. I think the marsh I'm using has the same problem. In particular, it won't merge straight into desert cleanly, which is an issue around Alexandria. A relatively easy fix is just to but a buffer layer of plains between swamp and desert, but I'll experiment a little more.

You're right that we need to make a marsh a "Feature" in order to have it give unhealth. I presume people still want this side-effect of marsh.

Sorry for the delay. I am trying hard to find a solid block of time to finish up the rest of the resources. Soon...

@3Miro

I have posted the new resources/terrain files in the files thread. For redundancy and to solicit feedback I'm posting info here too.

- Added new resources. Honey still a placeholder graphic. Colonial Resources don't have proper graphics (but they won't appear on map).
- Added new terrains: Moorland and Swamp
- Added new feature: Dense (un-choppable) forest
- Updated map with new terrains and feature (edited the Nov20 WBS with a text editor find/replace).

Due to time constrains I'm afraid I haven't really been able to test this stuff fully. There are probably some issues with which improvements can be built on what.

Here are the new resources:
Ones which will/can be added to map:
Apple
Barley
Honey
Potato
Salt
Sulphur
Timber
Colonial only (and thus dummy graphics for the map):
Coffee
Slaves
Tea
Tobacco

@3Miro

I have posted the new resources/terrain files in the files thread. For redundancy and to solicit feedback I'm posting info here too.

- Added new resources. Honey still a placeholder graphic. Colonial Resources don't have proper graphics (but they won't appear on map).
- Added new terrains: Moorland and Swamp
- Added new feature: Dense (un-choppable) forest
- Updated map with new terrains and feature (edited the Nov20 WBS with a text editor find/replace).

Due to time constrains I'm afraid I haven't really been able to test this stuff fully. There are probably some issues with which improvements can be built on what.

Here are the new resources:
Ones which will/can be added to map:
Apple
Barley
Honey
Potato
Salt
Sulphur
Timber
Colonial only (and thus dummy graphics for the map):
Coffee
Slaves
Tea
Tobacco

Can't wait to see these in action.


I know we'd talked about timber, but I wasn't sure what the consensus on it was. Had we agreed to put it in as a requirement for building large ships? Is it a dense forest resource only, or a fairly common one?

I should be able to do the full reinstalls over the weekend, which will hopefully allow me to finally open the mod to update resource placements on the map.

If we make Timber a requirement for tall ships (Galleons and later?), which I approve of, then I suppose it should be fairly common. I've added the resources but have yet to update the unit files with requirements.

One nice thing about putting it only in dense forests is that we can then have Timber "hooked in" through a lumbermill -- not that those are currently probably available in dense forests, but they will be. Furthermore, it prevents the odd sight of timber sitting out in the middle cleared forest (technically, we could probably Python our way around this, of course)

Could Tar be a resource? In the 16th and 17th century Sweden exported a lot of tar for the navies of England and Portugal.

Not every resource could be introduced as a resource in the game. We could make a tar event, i.e. your country has become the worlds leading exporter of tar ... + X gold or whatever.

Okay, just had that idea when saw that Timber is one of the resources. :)

Okay, just had that idea when saw that Timber is one of the resources. :)

Only things Finland was known for in the colonial times, eh? :p

You're right. :D

Sedna,

I noted when trying to add ocean tiles to the Black Sea that there's no distinction between coast and ocean in the WB terrain editor. Is that intentional?

Probably my turn to rant about the map, esp. of England because that's where I live and do know a little about. I realize that everything can't be super-accurate and most of England and Scotland is represented pretty well but there are a couple of areas in the south of England that are clearly wrong.

I. There should be no marsh in eastern Kent. It is full of orchards. That is why Kent is called "The Garden of England". That's where we need to put apples.
2. There is no need for all the marsh in Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. One tile south of the dye would be more than enough to represent the Fens and the Norfolk Broads. One tile only!
3. There is no moorland between Bristol and London. One grassland plus one wooded hill would be accurate to represent the flat Gloucester area and the Cotswold Hills.
4. There should be a mountain tile in North Wales to represent Snowdonia.

There. I've had my rant. I could go on but I realize we can't get it perfect. It's just that I've started a game as England and I am severely hampered by these glaring errors. Sorry st. lucifer. I'm trying to be constructive, not pick a fight with you or anyone else.:)

Probably my turn to rant about the map, esp. of England because that's where I live and do know a little about. I realize that everything can't be super-accurate and most of England and Scotland is represented pretty well but there are a couple of areas in the south of England that are clearly wrong.

To clarify - the screenshot you posted is the change you want made?

To clarify - the screenshot you posted is the change you want made?

Boy! You were quick. I was still editing. No, that's how it is now. I'll be back with another screenshot in a moment.

OK. Here it is, as requested.

Ok. I'm looking at Cornelio's suggested changes to the coastlines, and I may make some changes there. I'm fine with taking the marsh out of Kent, where it doesn't belong (confusion on my part there), but the reason for the large marsh around Norfolk was to decrease/limit the productivity of England somewhat. Same issue with the moorland.


England's not the only place on the map that's undergone some changes to decrease its productivity or viability. In many cases, the nerfs I've made to the map are geographically inexcusable (N. Africa comes to mind.)

We can go one of two ways on this. I've manipulated the map in the interest of balance, to try and avoid creating superpowers.

I could do my best to make the most accurate map possible, leaving more of the balancing work to the coders (adjusting tech rates, stability ratings, etc.)

Or, we could keep the map the way it is, with some geographical nerfs built in.

I'm ok either way, honestly. I like accuracy, but I figured that it was easier to adjust the map than it was to fine-tune the code for a desired result. So, give me feedback on this (particularly the coders), and I'll adjust accordingly.

@St. Lucifer

We can do a good amount of balancing, so I would go with geographic accuracy most of the time. It will be important to have resources well balanced though -- everyone needs metal/sulphur for instance -- not much we can do to compensate for the lack of something like that.

When I load up the latest save in WorldBuilder, I see the option to do both ocean and coast, so I'm not sure why you don't. It certainly wasn't intentionally removed...

Looking at the new map with the new terrain and resources (love them BTW), i notice that Cordoba and Denmark still need some resources. Denmark has plenty of food now, but no production resources. Perhaps add some copper or iron?

Also, the Cordoba UHV requires a large city, but there are no food resources around there. Perhaps some wheat around the Cordoban starting spot? Also, IN RFC world, there is silver in south-east Spain. Should we add some there? perhaps around Valencia?

Looking at the new map with the new terrain and resources (love them BTW), i notice that Cordoba and Denmark still need some resources. Denmark has plenty of food now, but no production resources. Perhaps add some copper or iron?

Also, the Cordoba UHV requires a large city, but there are no food resources around there. Perhaps some wheat around the Cordoban starting spot? Also, IN RFC world, there is silver in south-east Spain. Should we add some there? perhaps around Valencia?

Both good points. I'll see what I can do.

Denmark's not supposed to be very productive, but the area around Tonsberg (directly N of the Norse start, which flips upon spawn) is supposed to have metals.

Iberia does still need some work. I'll post another update later today.

How many settlers do the Norse start with? If the answer is 3, then I will accept what you say. I settler settles in Denmark (to represent Roskilde) one in Sweden and one across the Baltic in Norway.

I'd be fine with that. My thought historically was that the Norse needed axes to cut down the trees to build their longboats. They could not have gotten across the Baltic to mine the copper by swimming after all.

Both good points. I'll see what I can do.

Denmark's not supposed to be very productive, but the area around Tonsberg (directly N of the Norse start, which flips upon spawn) is supposed to have metals.

Iberia does still need some work. I'll post another update later today.

I'd like to have some input on that.

As I suggested earlier, rice should appear N. of Valencia after 1000AD. Also fruit should be fairly abundant S. of Cordoba and Seville after 800AD. Wine also should be abundant, ideally within reach of all cities.

The main areas for ironand coal should be Galicia (near La Corunna), Cantabria (near Bilbao) and around Toledo. Wheat or barley should be plentiful S. and E. of Cordoba and on the plains near Leon and Zaragoza.

Fish and crabs should be available on all coasts but more so in the north. Sulphur, saltpeter, copper and salt should be available near Granada, Valencia and Barcelona. Horses, of course, should be available everywhere.

That's all I can think of for now, but I'm sure you have other ideas.:)

I'd like to have some input on that.

As I suggested earlier, rice should appear N. of Valencia after 1000AD. Also fruit should be fairly abundant S. of Cordoba and Seville after 800AD. Wine also should be abundant, ideally within reach of all cities.

The main areas for ironand coal should be Galicia (near La Corunna), Cantabria (near Bilbao) and around Toledo. Wheat or barley should be plentiful S. and E. of Cordoba and on the plains near Leon and Zaragoza.

Fish and crabs should be available on all coasts but more so in the north. Sulphur, saltpeter, copper and salt should be available near Granada, Valencia and Barcelona. Horses, of course, should be available everywhere.

That's all I can think of for now, but I'm sure you have other ideas.:)

I'm not sure how to add timed resources, so I didn't add potatoes or rice anywhere.

Let's move this discussion back to the map thread.

One of the coders will have to add in the late-spawning resources. If anyone wants to generate a full/complete list that would be good.

Also, what do people think of the new terrain appearance in the latest RFC? I like the updated oceans quite a bit. We could easily port that into RFC Europe.

One of the coders will have to add in the late-spawning resources. If anyone wants to generate a full/complete list that would be good.

Also, what do people think of the new terrain appearance in the latest RFC? I like the updated oceans quite a bit. We could easily port that into RFC Europe.


I haven't seen it yet. If it's better we should use it IMO.

Couple of proposals on Marshes:
- roads shouldn't be buildable. I can picture a road in a jungle if using a lot of imagination, but not in a marsh :D
- maybe units should be able to pass them but take huge health penalties for doing it. -30% or so of health, and movement cost of 2.

My general preference is to keep features the same as in Civ/RFC unless we have to make changes. This makes it easier for new people to play the mod. Still, your suggestions on Marsh are easily code-able.

There are roads built through some of the swamp areas we have on the map, even in ancient times. I think the more accurate change would be to make marshes impassable unless there is a road there.

My general preference is to keep features the same as in Civ/RFC unless we have to make changes. This makes it easier for new people to play the mod. Still, your suggestions on Marsh are easily code-able.

There are roads built through some of the swamp areas we have on the map, even in ancient times. I think the more accurate change would be to make marshes impassable unless there is a road there.

I agree that movement through marshes should require a road as it is in RFC. Its quite historical to have roads through marsh. Many cultures have used stone or gravel land-fill to create causeways across marshland. The Flemish engineers who drained the Fens in England in the Middle Ages certainly did this. Maybe there should be a heavy penalty for a worker building a road through such areas. Like 4 times the build moves or something.

I would stress on the health penalties because in the early middle ages there were cities (Ravenna, Pavia) practically impregnable for the simple reason of being surrounded by swamps. Any army that tried laying siege on these towns was decimated by illnesses.

I think, in RFC swamps have different goals than in RFCE, namely separate civs and prevent massive colonization of land.

A note on all the updated terrain and improvements.

It used to be the case that nothing removes the forest. Now all improvements (except roads and limber mills) remove forest. I suggest we change it so that:
Farms, Plantations and Windmills remove forests
Mines and Watermills do not.

IMO we could use the extra hammers.

Also, Apples use Plantation and yet that removes the forest. Orchard plantations are not exactly forest, but still, would it not make sense to keep that.

Mills in general need more love anyways. Watermills as they are now only provide a +1 hammer without any further enhancement. Pretty useless if you ask me. Same thing for Windmills.. they both should obtain +1 hammer and +1 commerce with later techs. Also, maybe they should require Engeneering.

I agree with onedreamer's assessment. Workshops are also an improvement that requires upgrading as a civ moves through the tech tree.

Okay, some good ideas here. It's clearly necessary to make wind/watermills and workshops improve with later techs, and I'll do this.

As for removing forests, I am of... four minds about that. The first is that it certainly makes realistic sense to leave forests around for watermills and the mines of this era -- both can happily co-exist with a forest. The second is that leaving forests for mines/watermills changes a game mechanic which will certainly cause some new players some confusion (what? but normally when I click the "mine" button it removes the forest).

The third is that, at least in northern Europe, forests were a significant brake on development -- now mostly this was because they had to be laboriously cleared for farmland, but the idea remains that one should need to spend time chopping forest in order to build improvements on the land. The fourth is that, as 3Miro says, we currently need more production and less food.

That's pretty much a toss-up. I guess I'll make the change to leave forests for mines and watermills.

Apple plantations are totally different from forests though, and do require the clearing of land in real life, and should in our mod. A few apple trees randomly growing in the forest is represented by the food increase an un-improved apple resource provides.

Mines and actually all improvements did not chop forest for quite a while in out mod, nobody really complained (or perhaps didn't notice). Leave forest for watermills and mines for now and clear it for everything else (except limbermills of course).

Okay, some good ideas here. It's clearly necessary to make wind/watermills and workshops improve with later techs, and I'll do this.

As for removing forests, I am of... four minds about that. The first is that it certainly makes realistic sense to leave forests around for watermills and the mines of this era -- both can happily co-exist with a forest. The second is that leaving forests for mines/watermills changes a game mechanic which will certainly cause some new players some confusion (what? but normally when I click the "mine" button it removes the forest).

The third is that, at least in northern Europe, forests were a significant brake on development -- now mostly this was because they had to be laboriously cleared for farmland, but the idea remains that one should need to spend time chopping forest in order to build improvements on the land. The fourth is that, as 3Miro says, we currently need more production and less food.

That's pretty much a toss-up. I guess I'll make the change to leave forests for mines and watermills.

Apple plantations are totally different from forests though, and do require the clearing of land in real life, and should in our mod. A few apple trees randomly growing in the forest is represented by the food increase an un-improved apple resource provides.

I concur with Sedna on this.

Is production really that bad? I guess there are some areas of Eastern Europe that are pretty barren of extra resources.


One possible way of improving the mill production issue would be to increase their production with the development of later techs - so, windmills and watermills might pick up an extra hammer from replaceable parts or printing press.

Okay, some good ideas here. It's clearly necessary to make wind/watermills and workshops improve with later techs, and I'll do this.

As for removing forests, I am of... four minds about that. The first is that it certainly makes realistic sense to leave forests around for watermills and the mines of this era -- both can happily co-exist with a forest. The second is that leaving forests for mines/watermills changes a game mechanic which will certainly cause some new players some confusion (what? but normally when I click the "mine" button it removes the forest).

The third is that, at least in northern Europe, forests were a significant brake on development -- now mostly this was because they had to be laboriously cleared for farmland, but the idea remains that one should need to spend time chopping forest in order to build improvements on the land. The fourth is that, as 3Miro says, we currently need more production and less food.

That's pretty much a toss-up. I guess I'll make the change to leave forests for mines and watermills.

Apple plantations are totally different from forests though, and do require the clearing of land in real life, and should in our mod. A few apple trees randomly growing in the forest is represented by the food increase an un-improved apple resource provides.


Remember that the most deforestation in Europe happened exactly in High Middle Ages/Renaissance, when the European powers were building big fleets of big ships. Maybe forest chopping shouldn't be allowed until a certain tech connected to ship building ?
Also, watermill in forests will not receive the commerce bonus.

Remember that the most deforestation in Europe happened exactly in High Middle Ages/Renaissance, when the European powers were building big fleets of big ships. Maybe forest chopping shouldn't be allowed until a certain tech connected to ship building ?
Also, watermill in forests will not receive the commerce bonus.

I agree with this idea. We should have shipbuilding enable lumber mills which can work all forests giving you extra production bonuses but without actually chopping them down. They should be required for building all ship units so the player won't want to chop all his forests knowing he will later need lumber production for ship-building.

RE: Rice

I understand the desire to limit it to specific regions, but if there are at least15 resources placed on the map, then it is filling a valuable slot for resources and should be scrapped.

I agree with this idea. We should have shipbuilding enable lumber mills which can work all forests giving you extra production bonuses but without actually chopping them down. They should be required for building all ship units so the player won't want to chop all his forests knowing he will later need lumber production for ship-building.

Two problems: The lumber resource without forest looks funny, and the AI would be dumb and chop forests without regard for the long-term. Currently we have lumber mostly in dense (unchoppable forest), which seems like a better solution.

Re: Rice
We're not near the resource limit at this time, so we don't have to eliminate it.

I agree with this idea. We should have shipbuilding enable lumber mills which can work all forests giving you extra production bonuses but without actually chopping them down. They should be required for building all ship units so the player won't want to chop all his forests knowing he will later need lumber production for ship-building.

Some areas could indeed use a permanent +1 production bonus but wouldn't that make Timber look bad? It would then be pretty "obsolete", just there for the faster ship building bonus.

EDIT:
Now that I think of it, I like your suggestion of certain areas being limited to certain improvements. It would improve the game's strategic value and make it look less like that environment is the production of man instead of man being the production of environment.

A question/suggestion on dense forest:

What do people think about making it impassable to siege and cavalry units?

This makes the Alps, Carpathians, and Russia a bit more defensively formidable and challenging to move through, which will tend to funnel trade and armies through their traditional routes.



As far as the timber/forest chopping issue-

I like onedreamer's original suggestion, that clearing forest not be made available until the fairly late shipbuilding tech. We can have that replace the 'workers construct improvements 50% faster' power, which is duplicated again by steam engines; this will prevent the early deforestation that you see the AI trapping itself with. It also keeps the timber resource valuable, even if one needs a lumbermill to work it.

A question/suggestion on dense forest:

What do people think about making it impassable to siege and cavalry units?

This makes the Alps, Carpathians, and Russia a bit more defensively formidable and challenging to move through, which will tend to funnel trade and armies through their traditional routes.

That's nothing I'd have trouble with. The more strategic value to the game the better.

Also makes deep forest more realistic to history. Tough to move siege engines through forest where the trees are only a few feet apart.

Although....if the civ builds roads through the forrest, should the units be able to follow roads?

Although....if the civ builds roads through the forrest, should the units be able to follow roads?

Yes, but enemy units shouldn't IMO.

A question/suggestion on dense forest:

What do people think about making it impassable to siege and cavalry units?

This makes the Alps, Carpathians, and Russia a bit more defensively formidable and challenging to move through, which will tend to funnel trade and armies through their traditional routes.

Two ideas:
1) In hills and dense forests inside cultural borders, the native unit gets a bonus (attack-defense) as it knows better the region.
2) It could be even better, though, if these types of units needed 2-3 movement points to pass through dense forests.

2 things:
1) aren't Replaceable Parts and Physics a bit too late to enhance an improvement that's available from the beginning ? By that time, the land will already be all improved, and most probably not with mills... also because:
2) watermill + forest = no commerce bonus. Either the watermill has to remove the forest, or -I suppose- the tag from the lumbermill could be used. I didn't actually play with the last version, so forgive me if this has already been done.

2 things:
1) aren't Replaceable Parts and Physics a bit too late to enhance an improvement that's available from the beginning ? By that time, the land will already be all improved, and most probably not with mills... also because:
2) watermill + forest = no commerce bonus. Either the watermill has to remove the forest, or -I suppose- the tag from the lumbermill could be used. I didn't actually play with the last version, so forgive me if this has already been done.

That's a fair point about the lateness of the improvements. I guess I'd be okay with mills being relatively limited throughout much of the game, only really getting into their own in the build-up to the industrial revolution. Do other people have opinions?

That's a fair point about the lateness of the improvements. I guess I'd be okay with mills being relatively limited throughout much of the game, only really getting into their own in the build-up to the industrial revolution. Do other people have opinions?

I'm of a couple of minds on this. Flour/grist mills (watermills, basically) were really important for medieval development - long before the industrial era. Most towns had a grist mill or access to one; the presence of a mill was often the reason for the existence of a village.

Lumber mills and windmills, on the other hand, are later inventions, at least in terms of their common usage. Windmills showed up in the Arab world around the year 1000 and spread to Spain through the Umayyads; lumber mills arrived a little later from the same source (although they were present in the Roman world, there is no mention of them during the Dark Ages).

As such, I'm not sure we do a very good job of representing mills as they were.

What I would propose is having watermills available early, as their initial bonus is low - only one hammer, but enough to turn some resource-poor areas marginally productive.

Have windmills show up with a later tech, possibly with lumbermills, possibly with lumbermills showing up a little after that. They'd be a early-mid-game improvement, with little bonus - again, maybe one hammer each.

We can then incorporate the previous suggestion to have later techs make mills more productive - possibly the tech which makes wind/lumbermills available gives watermills an extra hammer or an extra trade; maybe later techs in that branch of the tree each carry small, similar bonuses.

With this approach, we've got a couple of advantages - first, mills aren't very powerful early in the game, but they will prove important for resource-poor areas. However, the player/AI who builds mills won't be at a total disadvantage by not building cottages early - this also means that civs which spawn late like Sweden and the Dutch won't be at a such a researching disadvantage by not having fully built towns. Both spawn in areas with multiple rivers, with some of the techs that make mills more advantageous. (Also, the Dutch need to build mills and workshops due to the low hammers available in their terrain.)


What do people think of this idea?

I'm of a couple of minds on this. Flour/grist mills (watermills, basically) were really important for medieval development - long before the industrial era. Most towns had a grist mill or access to one; the presence of a mill was often the reason for the existence of a village.

Lumber mills and windmills, on the other hand, are later inventions, at least in terms of their common usage. Windmills showed up in the Arab world around the year 1000 and spread to Spain through the Umayyads; lumber mills arrived a little later from the same source (although they were present in the Roman world, there is no mention of them during the Dark Ages).

As such, I'm not sure we do a very good job of representing mills as they were.

What I would propose is having watermills available early, as their initial bonus is low - only one hammer, but enough to turn some resource-poor areas marginally productive.

Have windmills show up with a later tech, possibly with lumbermills, possibly with lumbermills showing up a little after that. They'd be a early-mid-game improvement, with little bonus - again, maybe one hammer each.

We can then incorporate the previous suggestion to have later techs make mills more productive - possibly the tech which makes wind/lumbermills available gives watermills an extra hammer or an extra trade; maybe later techs in that branch of the tree each carry small, similar bonuses.

With this approach, we've got a couple of advantages - first, mills aren't very powerful early in the game, but they will prove important for resource-poor areas. However, the player/AI who builds mills won't be at a total disadvantage by not building cottages early - this also means that civs which spawn late like Sweden and the Dutch won't be at a such a researching disadvantage by not having fully built towns. Both spawn in areas with multiple rivers, with some of the techs that make mills more advantageous. (Also, the Dutch need to build mills and workshops due to the low hammers available in their terrain.)


What do people think of this idea?

I like your ideas esp making waterwheels available earlier and being made more powerful.
Remember my proposal for the "Soria" water mill UB for the Cordobans which would represent the advanced irrigation and production from the great waterwheels I've seen on the Guadalqivir R. near Cordoba? Somehow that got changed to the "Garden" UB giving +1 Health, +1 Happiness instead. A very weak UB and no help in production at all IMO. Now that we're likely to have the "Gardens of Al Andalus" as a World Wonder, I like us to reconsider the Soria as a more productive and appropriate UB for Cordoba.

I'm of a couple of minds on this. Flour/grist mills (watermills, basically) were really important for medieval development - long before the industrial era. Most towns had a grist mill or access to one; the presence of a mill was often the reason for the existence of a village.

What I would propose is having watermills available early, as their initial bonus is low - only one hammer, but enough to turn some resource-poor areas marginally productive.

We can then incorporate the previous suggestion to have later techs make mills more productive - possibly the tech which makes wind/lumbermills available gives watermills an extra hammer or an extra trade; maybe later techs in that branch of the tree each carry small, similar bonuses.

What do people think of this idea?

Given both the UP of the British and the terrain type in Britain (moorlands, forests) as well as the amount of rivers in Britain, that means that they are going 3-4 hammers per tile just for fun!!! OK I know they were a productive nation and that's why they actually made it first to the Industrial Age, but that means but a decent sized 10 city will produce 35 hammers per turn, 50 with Forges!!! Isn't that too much?

Given both the UP of the British and the terrain type in Britain (moorlands, forests) as well as the amount of rivers in Britain, that means that they are going 3-4 hammers per tile just for fun!!! OK I know they were a productive nation and that's why they actually made it first to the Industrial Age, but that means but a decent sized 10 city will produce 35 hammers per turn, 50 with Forges!!! Isn't that too much?

Yes, 50 hammers is certainly too much. I'm not proposing a 1-hammer jump for each tech. I'm suggesting that later techs give a small bonus, maybe to a maximum of 2 hammers/3 trade. That's pretty good, but is it really better than a town (6 trade, 1 hammer with the right civics)? Arguable. But a town's definitely better than an existing watermill (1 hammer, 1 trade).

Moorland won't support cottages, so we could tweak it so it wouldn't support watermills if that seems necessary.

I didn't mean anything about 1 hammer per tech. Normally, a moorland has 1 production. If a watermill is added, it will go to 3-right? A forest has 2 production, and a hill with a windmill will get 4 (given that we are talking about Britons) . For a size 12 city with mixed types of terrain (since some grasslands are needed for this size), it makes 30 production per turn, goes 45 with forge building. An English empire with 8 cities will produce 4 Longbowmen or 3 Granadiers per turn!!! Certainly a great warmongering force.At the same time these cities will produce 30 trade, 60 with commerce, 65 with Manorialism. With a 60S-10C-30E distribution and Libraries-Markets built, that makes 60 science and 30 gold.
Building towns instead (6 trade-1 hammer) as Britons will get the same time around 20 hammers (you can't build hill towns, right? So you must mine them) for the same 12 size city, 30 with forge building. Not bad. With the same distribution and the same buildings and Manorialism ... 90 science and 45 gold.

Umm... I suppose you are right. Although the first case gets higher production, the second gets higher research...really arguable as it is right now.

Perhaps it would be better to keep it as now...

That's a fair point about the lateness of the improvements. I guess I'd be okay with mills being relatively limited throughout much of the game, only really getting into their own in the build-up to the industrial revolution. Do other people have opinions?

my opinion is the opposite (like St.Lucifer's) : watermills should be a key improvement in middle ages, while workshop should become important in the industrial revolution.

@micbic
that would actually be 2 hammers per tile, why 3-4 ? O_o
Also consider that the watermill is a very limited improvement, because not only it needs a river and it must be a linear part (no river corners), you also can't build 2 watermills on both sides of a river. So it wouldn't even be all tiles in England ;)

Now put aside history for a moment. Because it's the most limited improvement in the game, I think it should at least be worthwhile. "Oh look, I can build a watermill here, what a nice surprise. But wait... it's worth nothing >_<"

I think watermills, like windmills, should also improve food. Maybe with civic, or maybe with later techs. My proposal is as follows:

- watermills can be built in forests without destroying them, but they must be coded so that they get the commerce bonus.
- watermills and windmills get +1 hammer with a later tech.
- watermills and windmills get +1 commerce with another later tech (even two times maybe).
- watermills get +1 food with another later tech (or civic), provided that the watermill is not built in forests.
- workshop should start with -1 food, +1 hammer, +1 hammer from a civic, and +1 hammer from a later (industrial) tech.

@micbic
that would actually be 2 hammers per tile, why 3-4 ? O_o
Also consider that the watermill is a very limited improvement, because not only it needs a river and it must be a linear part (no river corners), you also can't build 2 watermills on both sides of a river. So it wouldn't even be all tiles in England ;)


2 hammers are the final watermill output. 3 in a moorland, 4 in a hill. Similarly for windmills (1 normal, 2 moorland, 3 hill). Workshops can get 4 hammers with techs/civics and UP.
In the second part, you are right, but you can still build 15 watermills across England. Pretty large number, eh?)

I didn't mean anything about 1 hammer per tech. Normally, a moorland has 1 production. If a watermill is added, it will go to 3-right? A forest has 2 production, and a hill with a windmill will get 4 (given that we are talking about Britons)

Micbic, where are you taking these numbers ?
First, the windmill removes the forest, so 4 production with a windmill is impossible unless golden age.
Also, I really don't undestand this kind of objections, if you add a mine on that hill you'll have the same result. Just because it's a windmill it is a problem ?
The proposals that have been made are in line with the game. Already tested and balanced, why should we change these balances, so that the stereotype of farm-mine-cottage isn't just a stereotype but an indispensable strategy ?

2 hammers are the final watermill output. 3 in a moorland, 4 in a hill. Similarly for windmills (1 normal, 2 moorland, 3 hill). Workshops can get 4 hammers with techs/civics and UP.
In the second part, you are right, but you can still build 15 watermills across England. Pretty large number, eh?)

micbic, you can't build a watermill on a hill. Please stop making up wrong numbers, aaarggh !!!!
and 15 watermills isn't a large number since you won't build farms (hence no mines) nor cottages.
what the heck is moorland btw ?

Micbic, where are you taking these numbers ?
First, the windmill removes the forest, so 4 production with a windmill is impossible unless golden age.
Also, I really don't undestand this kind of objections, if you add a mine on that hill you'll have the same result. Just because it's a windmill it is a problem ?
The proposals that have been made are in line with the game. Already tested and balanced, why should we change these balances, so that the stereotype of farm-mine-cottage isn't just a stereotype but an indispensable strategy ?



micbic, you can't build a watermill on a hill. Please stop making up wrong numbers, aaarggh !!!!
and 15 watermills isn't a large number since you won't build farms (hence no mines) nor cottages.
what the heck is moorland btw ?

OK. Just wanted to attempt an "explanation of the current case''.
By the way, moorland is a terrain type existent in Wales, Scotland and Kaliningrad/Konigsberg region in map. It has a brownish design-easy to recognize.

what the heck is moorland btw ?

Do you mean in the game or in real life? Living in a country that has a lot of moorland maybe I should explain. The Yorkshire, Welsh and Scottish moors, as well as Dartmoor and Bodmin Moor (near where I live) in SW England tend to be treeless upland areas, partly rocky with some grass, scrub bushes and patches of peat bog. Not very productive for agriculture but usually grazed with sheep. So in our game you couldn't farm moorland but mining, sheep and cattle resources would be productive. And you really could put a water mill on moorland if it was adjacent to a water tile as moors often have rivers running through them. (There's a big watermill on Dartmoor which I've visited). Does that help?

yep... well I meant in the game actually.

If you're going to improve Mill output, it needs to be far before Replaceable Parts and Physics. Like I said with workshops, the problem with these bonuses is that they don't come until the end, and I mean the end, of the game. Farming bonuses are available within 50 turns of the start for most civs, most of the rest start with Vassalage. Towns get all their upgrades with Constitution, allowing them to be better than mills (unless you're creating a production-specific city) and lets them retain dominance over mills even with Physics. Yes, Towns require specifics civics to max out, but those just happen to be the best civics in their respective categories (which is another topic we need to address).

Proposal: Mills get +1 food (realistic) with either Monument Building or Civil Service. Replaceable Parts bonus is retained, however the Physics bonus is moved to Public Works or Steam Engines. Also, a bonus can be moved to or added to Merchant Republic, since industrial processed goods enabled the growth of production, hence, trade.

If you are unwilling to do this, then I propose that the tile improvements watermills and windmills are scrapped entirely and replaced with the building "Mill". The building would require access to a river and give a production bonus of 25%. The building Forge will be changed to +25% Military Production and become a pre-requisite building for later heavy units: Heavy Crossbowman, Knight, Maceman, Pikeman, etc. Later techs, such as Replaceable Parts or Physics, can cause modifiers to the Mill building.

different topic:

I would add a source of food to Nice (fish ?). It currently has none but it was an important city in the Middle Ages, and should be high on the settler map for Genua.

different topic:

I would add a source of food to Nice (fish ?). It currently has none but it was an important city in the Middle Ages, and should be high on the settler map for Genua.

I also notice a clam near Roma, which can't be worked as it is not in the Roman fatcross. Was this intended for health benefit but not growth potential? Kind of like the sheep in Italia NE of Roma and SE of Firenze. It cant be used by either, but woudl give health benefits to the owner of the square.

I also notice a clam near Roma, which can't be worked as it is not in the Roman fatcross. Was this intended for health benefit but not growth potential? Kind of like the sheep in Italia NE of Roma and SE of Firenze. It cant be used by either, but woudl give health benefits to the owner of the square.

That's the idea, yes. Onedreamer, I'll consider adding a seafood resource between Genoa and Marseilles in the next update, if there's a tile that could only be worked by Nice and not by one of the other two cities. Both already have one.

I've made a discovery that I think will improve the mod. Somebody has created a new kind of terrain feature called "Savanna" It isn't actually savanna, technically speaking, but more like a light forest with palm trees mixed in. When placed correctly, it gives areas a strong Mediterranean flavor, I think it's perfect for our mod.

I installed the feature in my copy of RFCE and played around with it to see what looked good. I really like how it looks in coastal Spain, North Africa, and Mediterranean islands.
It also goes remarkably well with olives and bananas. Here some handsome screenshots of the feature on our map.

I've already asked the creator, pie at, for permission to use the mod. Here is the link to the download. http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=16657 What do you all think?

Yes! And with lower chopping bonus :)

Yes! And with lower chopping bonus :)

Of course, I'll leave the gameplay decisions to 3Miro, but I was thinking 1/2 the chopping bonus, 1/2 the movement penalty, 1/2 the defense bonus of a forest. Instead of +1:hammers:, it gets +1:food: and improvements can be built on it without removing the feature.

Of course, I'll leave the gameplay decisions to 3Miro, but I was thinking 1/2 the chopping bonus, 1/2 the movement penalty, 1/2 the defense bonus of a forest. Instead of +1:hammers:, it gets +1:food: and improvements can be built on it without removing the feature.

This is good graphically. We can ad it even if we make it identical to regular forest.

I think +1 :food: would be OP, on plains this would be a equivalent to a farm, except you get it for free in the beginning of the game.

+1 :food: -1 :hammers: would be interesting if we make sure we put light forest mostly one plains. Or +1 :food: -1 :commerce: and put it near rivers.

+1 :food: may stay as a good bonus for the Atlantic islands, but then we shouldn't add this feature for more than a couple of tiles in Europe.

Lower chopping bonus makes sense, but I don't think we should leave it on after making improvements. In the past, we have tried mixing forest and improvements and we ended up deciding against it.

This is good graphically. We can ad it even if we make it identical to regular forest.

I think +1 :food: would be OP, on plains this would be a equivalent to a farm, except you get it for free in the beginning of the game.

+1 :food: -1 :hammers: would be interesting if we make sure we put light forest mostly one plains. Or +1 :food: -1 :commerce: and put it near rivers.

+1 :food: may stay as a good bonus for the Atlantic islands, but then we shouldn't add this feature for more than a couple of tiles in Europe.

Lower chopping bonus makes sense, but I don't think we should leave it on after making improvements. In the past, we have tried mixing forest and improvements and we ended up deciding against it.

I would include it in only a couple tiles anyway. The screenshots I showed are probably the extent of it. This forest doesn't really "look good" on grassland except for in the Atlantic Islands On mainland Europe, it would only be on plains, so I think +1 :food: and no extra :hammers: is the best.

I just thought that leaving the feature on after the improvement would be good just for this feature because there aren't a lot trees in the art which leaves very few when the improvement is built. This results in very attractive scenery and I don't want all of these light forests to be gone once their tiles are inevitably improved. Look at the pre-placed hamlet improvement in the "Cartagena" screenshot for example. It just doesn't get any more Mediterranean than that. :)

Merijn, it seems you messed up something with the resource buttons
All the new resources' buttons in RFCE are showed with a unit's button in the background (somewhat merging those 2 buttons)
I assume this is because of the new button atlases

Btw, was it really a good decision to put all our buttons into atlases?
They are much harder to edit/update/change this way IMO

Merijn, it seems you messed up something with the resource buttons
All the new resources' buttons in RFCE are showed with a unit's button in the background (somewhat merging those 2 buttons)
I assume this is because of the new button atlases

Btw, was it really a good decision to put all our buttons into atlases?
They are much harder to edit/update/change this way IMO

Do they, I don't have any problems at all. Can you post a screenie with an example?

I don't mind that they are a bit harder to change (for me they aren't). Most of them won't be changed anymore. But if you really don't like it we can revert them back to seperate images.

Just check the resources in WorldBuilder / turn on display resources on the map.
The new ones in RFCE have a strange background (I think it's another button as the correct button's background) while the original resources have they normal black background
I will post some screenies if everything displays fine in your end

Just check the resources in WorldBuilder / turn on display resources on the map.
The new ones in RFCE have a strange background (I think it's another button as the correct button's background) while the original resources have they normal black background
I will post some screenies if everything displays fine in your end

Now I see what you mean. If the resources are the only one that give problems, we could only leave those out of the Atlas.

I'm not against atlases, just don't really see the point of them
Anyway, if you can fix the resource buttons with keeping them in the atlas, that's also fine by me

I just found a way to solve them, without having to move them out of the Atlas.

I just found a way to solve them, without having to move them out of the Atlas.

:goodjob:
Just tested it, all resource icons look fine

EDIT: found another mistake
Currently the Barley icon is the same as the Slave icon
Probably you mislinked Barley in the resources.xml to the wrong image in the atlas

I've made a discovery that I think will improve the mod. Somebody has created a new kind of terrain feature called "Savanna" It isn't actually savanna, technically speaking, but more like a light forest with palm trees mixed in. When placed correctly, it gives areas a strong Mediterranean flavor, I think it's perfect for our mod.

I installed the feature in my copy of RFCE and played around with it to see what looked good. I really like how it looks in coastal Spain, North Africa, and Mediterranean islands.
It also goes remarkably well with olives and bananas. Here some handsome screenshots of the feature on our map.

I've already asked the creator, pie at, for permission to use the mod. Here is the link to the download. http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=16657 What do you all think?

I was thinking about this
Probably the best way to implement it is to add stricly for the aesthatic value
So this Savanna/Light Forest feature wouldn't add any bonuses to the tile (neither production nor food), but it would stay when building an improvement on it.
This of course mean they are unchoppable, thus will stay on the map during the whole game.
IMO both of this would be an advantage to the mod

I like this. When you think about it, trees like that probably wouldn't have been of any productive advantage.

Doesn't affect balance, improves "feel", I like it :D

:goodjob:
Just tested it, all resource icons look fine

EDIT: found another mistake
Currently the Barley icon is the same as the Slave icon
Probably you mislinked Barley in the resources.xml to the wrong image in the atlas

I will fix it when I get back home.

Could the tiles of 'Rhodos' be changed from grassland hills to plains hills?
This would increase production a little, something similar could be done to some of the atlantic islands.
Base production of a city on plains hills is 2 food 2 hammers 1 commerce vs. the 2 food 1 hammer 1 commerce from a city on most other tiles. This can be further enhanced by certain resources(marble, stone? imo there is not enough stone in the game, at least not 'fairly' spread)

And could the fish by 'Funchai' (2 tile city W of Lisboa with salt, fish, sugar) be moved so that it isn't directly 1 S of the city location?
I tend to protect sea-resources with ships, these ships somewhat 'block' access to the city 'tag'. Forcing me to move the ships away and back so that I can change prodoction or hurry etc. Annoying..
Same counts for Palma de Mallorca.

I'm not against atlases, just don't really see the point of them

GPUs load and display an atlas of 200 icons much faster than 200 separate icons. It's nothing you'll notice on a fast computer, but coupled with other optimizations, it does help in making the game run smoothly on all machines.

GPUs load and display an atlas of 200 icons much faster than 200 separate icons. It's nothing you'll notice on a fast computer, but coupled with other optimizations, it does help in making the game run smoothly on all machines.

Oh, thanks for the clarification
I would have never thought that those few tiny images count much
It was a good call, Merijn :goodjob:

Could the tiles of 'Rhodos' be changed from grassland hills to plains hills?
This would increase production a little, something similar could be done to some of the atlantic islands.
Base production of a city on plains hills is 2 food 2 hammers 1 commerce vs. the 2 food 1 hammer 1 commerce from a city on most other tiles. This can be further enhanced by certain resources(marble, stone? imo there is not enough stone in the game, at least not 'fairly' spread)

And could the fish by 'Funchai' (2 tile city W of Lisboa with salt, fish, sugar) be moved so that it isn't directly 1 S of the city location?
I tend to protect sea-resources with ships, these ships somewhat 'block' access to the city 'tag'. Forcing me to move the ships away and back so that I can change prodoction or hurry etc. Annoying..
Same counts for Palma de Mallorca.

The map is greatly changed, especially for those Atlantic Islands
Production is always very hard on the cities there, so those islands will have a few plains hills every here and there

The map is greatly changed, especially for those Atlantic Islands
Production is always very hard on the cities there, so those islands will have a few plains hills every here and there

I just had an idea on the subject. I've always found the bonus of the Harbor to be a bit weak, Sure the +1:food: per water tile lets the city grow but that's it.. in comparision the Lighthouse gives Trade Route bonus and Health bonus.
Well.. how about adding a small production bonus to the Harbor. Maybe available at a later tech like with the water/windmill.
I have 2 ideas on the bonus. Either fixed like +2/+3:hammers: or based on amount of available resources e.g. +0.5 per available strategic resource (would result in a max of 4.5 -> 5:hammers: (including coal and slaves), I would prefer rounding up generally e.g iron, horse, timber available = 1.5 -> 2:hammers: per Harbor).

This could be 'explained' by increased productivity due to easier transportation and well coastal cities would have a slightly better production independent of their size or location.
Furthermore coal and slaves would both have more meaning in resource trading. Currently the AI puts no value on coal it only gives +5% production with the blacksmith anyway but on the other hand the AI pays allot for slaves which only speeds up certain colonial projects(and they trade slaves even if they aren't a colonial power e.g. Germany, Hungary, Muscovy).

So is the light forest feature going to be in the next version? If so, should I download an SVN version and place a few light forests where I think appropriate and upload it?

Also, what about that apple resource? I'm guessing that's never going to be re-implemented? You know, I was just thinking that the olive resource could be easily re-skinned orange instead of green to make a kind of citrus resource, it would probably look better than the apples which have an awkward palm tree kind of thing.

I noticed that the olive trees with and without the plantation improvement easily pass for orange trees and an orchard. Does anybody that knows a thing or two about art know if it's possible to do what I suggested to the olive resource?

If it's too late for that too then it's no big deal, maybe it could be done for 2.0 to mix things up in the Mediterranean a little more. Citrus would also make sense coming from a colony in small amounts.

It is fitting but we need less resources, not more! Happiness is far to abundant, there is never a need to use the cultural slider for happy faces. Health is just about right but still a bit easier than the medieval was.

It is fitting but we need less resources, not more! Happiness is far to abundant, there is never a need to use the cultural slider for happy faces. Health is just about right but still a bit easier than the medieval was.

I've read something like this somewhat often imo. Which civs do you play? Are you extremely aggressive and conquer all sorts of resources or where do these 'huge' amounts of 'too much' resources come from? Granted some civs do get quite allot e.g. Spain or France but other civs have a lot harder time. Try Austria with a strong Germany and Hungary. In which case you're pretty much screwed for a while and then you'd have to deal with cities turning 'unhappy' around size 10. Besides their health/growth issues, especially Prag. Wien itself can be growth monster on the other hand(wheat/barley + farms = lots of food). But thats just equal to what other civs have around their capitol.

" there is never a need to use the cultural slider for happy faces"

well I've used it certainly more than once, I've even prioritized the tech so that I can use the culture slider. And even if everything is perfect and you have tons of resources.. the culture slider comes into play along with war weariness at some point if you're in a longer dragged out war and/or have large cities.

But as I 'suggested', this might be true for some civs, but not for all.

Or are cities only supposed to be size 10-12? If you guys have a problem with the population, wouldn't it be easier to simply adjust the 'numbers' for each city size? e.g. so that a city of size 10 has say 30.000 citizens instead of half a million? That way a size 22 city like e.g. London(say having 200.000 citizens at size 22) would somewhat fit the max/large city size(in europe) of the time. Elsewise it would only make sense to me to start building cities so close to eachother so that size 10 is around max.

If you guys have a problem with the population, wouldn't it be easier to simply adjust the 'numbers' for each city size? e.g. so that a city of size 10 has say 30.000 citizens instead of half a million? That way a size 22 city like e.g. London(say having 200.000 citizens at size 22) would somewhat fit the max/large city size(in europe) of the time.

It's already set this way

I've read something like this somewhat often imo. Which civs do you play? Are you extremely aggressive and conquer all sorts of resources or where do these 'huge' amounts of 'too much' resources come from? Granted some civs do get quite allot e.g. Spain or France but other civs have a lot harder time. Try Austria with a strong Germany and Hungary. In which case you're pretty much screwed for a while and then you'd have to deal with cities turning 'unhappy' around size 10. Besides their health/growth issues, especially Prag. Wien itself can be growth monster on the other hand(wheat/barley + farms = lots of food). But thats just equal to what other civs have around their capitol.

" there is never a need to use the cultural slider for happy faces"

well I've used it certainly more than once, I've even prioritized the tech so that I can use the culture slider. And even if everything is perfect and you have tons of resources.. the culture slider comes into play along with war weariness at some point if you're in a longer dragged out war and/or have large cities.

But as I 'suggested', this might be true for some civs, but not for all.

Or are cities only supposed to be size 10-12? If you guys have a problem with the population, wouldn't it be easier to simply adjust the 'numbers' for each city size? e.g. so that a city of size 10 has say 30.000 citizens instead of half a million? That way a size 22 city like e.g. London(say having 200.000 citizens at size 22) would somewhat fit the max/large city size(in europe) of the time. Elsewise it would only make sense to me to start building cities so close to eachother so that size 10 is around max.

I think it is currently (at least in Beta 13) too easy for large civs to expand past solid and neutral areas. If this becomes harder, it is automatically harder to control all types of resources, which leads to a reduced amount of overall hapiness and health.

I think it is currently (at least in Beta 13) too easy for large civs to expand past solid and neutral areas. If this becomes harder, it is automatically harder to control all types of resources, which leads to a reduced amount of overall hapiness and health.

my point exactly, imo it isn't a 'generic' problem regarding all civs, but rather something that has to do with certain large civs. simply removing resources might weaken large civs but would definately hit smaller civs hard

maybe I just misunderstood the requests/feedback but I understood that there are too many resources in general and it should be reduced all over the map

e.g take away something from the Netherlands, how should they compensate for that? imo they can't spare a single resource(of course they could 'survive' or so but it would just suck to play them) the netehrlands are also a good canditade for the culture slider, you usually need it simply to not get crushed culturally by france/germany in the 'long run'. The culural pressure usually got tough around 1700.


and about it beeing too easy to expand, maybe additional instability once you have more than say 8 cities(or depending on the civ e.g. more for Muscovy)? maybe so high that it's larger than the benefit you get from stability buildings, that way your stability would decrease from some point on no matter what you do. and if you don't build stability buildings you'd collapse/lose cities if you get too large. escpecially if the regions aren't solid/ok
maybe an exponential rise from some point on? e.g. making it a tough choice/(or virtually impossible without risking losing cites) whether or not to capture/found that 15th city

on the other hand, I just remembered that civs like France/Germany can be very powerful and advanced while having only 6-7 cities

Guys, instability penalties for expansion are already brutal enough as is. Most civs collapse for expanding just a tiny bit outside their solid-ok zones. If anything there's a bit too much instability.

Guys, instability penalties for expansion are already brutal enough as is. Most civs collapse for expanding just a tiny bit outside their solid-ok zones. If anything there's a bit too much instability.

as I had written 'depending on civ' and 'depending on size'

basically I think it would only be France, Spain, Germany, Ottomans, Arabia

I'm not saying the same limit for all,just maybe some form of limit around the max. size that they should have. If you go for weird unstable provinces or neglect stability then you simply don't get that large.
From what I've gathered if you play it right, stability becomes a joke from a certain size on. Giving you the possibility of limitless expansion. (I wouldn't know though since I avoid war whenever I can)

e.g Ottomans should stop being able to expand once they have reached the limt of say 40 cities(all of Anatolia and the Balkans + a few Islands). If they expand even further and say go for Italy too or march into Austria, Germany, Russia whetever the limit could kick in. If they went for unstable areas instead of the balkans then they get into trouble a bit earlier. I'm not saying that they should immediately collapse one this happens, but simply a larger drop in stability depending on size(which iirc already is part of the game just doesn't have much of an impact)


In beta 13 I saw France with the weirdest civic combos(Merchant Republic, Bureaucracy, Apprenticeship, Manorialism, Imperialism), having conquered half of Spain, Northern Italy, most of the Middle East and of course all of France(Burgundy gone) and that while being 'very stable'(had to be somewhere around 20-30 cities). I think they even founded 2 corps, at least 1 (gives negative stabilty)

I think that in such a case stabilty should be an issue simply because of the size of the empire, the locations and the distances

The thing is that I've read several time that stability should be removed from certain buildings etc. I don't think that's the right way to go since that imo would hurt smaller civs just as much as large civs(or even more). It's the large expansive civs that need stabilty nerfs not the small ones. It's also usually the big civs that do the expanding anyway, I've never seen AI controlled small civs like Portugal or Genua getting extreme even if their neighbors collapse(due to warmaps?).

I don't think Germany needs more stability issues. It collapses almost all the time as is. Ottomans are a huge empire, so deal with it. Arabia is also pretty big, but loses importance later, so that's fine. France's UP is lowered instability, so your suggestion goes against their unique trait. Lastly, Spain's geographic position makes it very hard for the AI to expand past its borders because it has to deal with France, another superpower.

I don't think Germany needs more stability issues. It collapses almost all the time as is. Ottomans are a huge empire, so deal with it. Arabia is also pretty big, but loses importance later, so that's fine. France's UP is lowered instability, so your suggestion goes against their unique trait. Lastly, Spain's geographic position makes it very hard for the AI to expand past its borders because it has to deal with France, another superpower.

not really imo, my idea is to restrict size. If I understand the UP of France correctly it would work something like " they don't have to worry that much if a province is 'unstable' the UP basically makes it 'ok' " something like that..
which doesn't really have anything to do with a size limit imo


but I kinda think you didn't quite understand my post the way I meant it.. I know the Ottomans were huge.. and they should be.. that's not the issue the civs I mentioned are the civs that can occasionally become extremely large(and I don't mean just simply a superpower but really really large)
But I don't think that the AI should go on an endless expansion spree. Or would you say that an Ottoman Empire stretching over the whole of Africa, Levant, Anatolia, Balkans, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Germany and be standing at the gates of Paris, Stockholm and Moscow isn't overkill? (exaggerated I know but to make the point, would proably be a domination victory around then)


Or to Spain.. they can expand and become very large without going to war with France at all.. all of Italy, Sicily, The Netherlands, other Mediterranean islands, Atlantic islands, North Africa etc. but say if they actually did all that.. should they still be able to conquer all of France in addition to what they already have?

and the whole point being that I thought that adding a size limit for certain civs that tend to go on a spree would be better than removing overall stability for everyone

Guess what? Spain controlled parts of Italy, Sicily, Netherlands and some Mediterranean islands...
Also, the ottomans are having enough trouble as is trying to conquer the Balkans from Bulgaria and Austria/Hungary.

Civs have enough trouble as is expanding, usually becoming collapsed pathetic messes that kill entire regions. Even an intelligent human player can have a lot of trouble with stability even without ahistorical overexpansion. Civs don't need more stability penalties.

*Edit* By "kill" I mean, the region they occupied stops playing a significant role in the game, i.e. independants

-the following post was supposed to overwrite this one-

Guess what? Spain controlled parts of Italy, Sicily, Netherlands and some Mediterranean islands...
Also, the ottomans are having enough trouble as is trying to conquer the Balkans from Bulgaria and Austria/Hungary.

Civs have enough trouble as is expanding, usually becoming collapsed pathetic messes that kill entire regions. Even an intelligent human player can have a lot of trouble with stability even without ahistorical overexpansion. Civs don't need more stability penalties.

*Edit* By "kill" I mean, the region they occupied stops playing a significant role in the game, i.e. independants

pls read again what I wrote, I now made the 'important' part bold, the part which seems to have been ignored.. just like with the Ottoman I don't read out of this that Spain shouldn't have those areas...

[I]
Or to Spain.. they can expand and become very large without going to war with France at all.. all of Italy, Sicily, The Netherlands, other Mediterranean islands, Atlantic islands, North Africa etc. but say if they actually did all that.. should they still be able to conquer all of France in addition to what they already have?


If Spain were to reach the size mentioned, I'd guess that they too would have 20-30+ cites.. that's not big enough?

I see it from a general player perspective. In each civ I playtested in Beta 13 (there are no large stability changes in RC AFAIK), I managed to get an empire far past the historical borders, while remaining solid or later on very solid all the time. Once you have courthouses, castles, manor houses and night watches everywhere, just build a new city, get the basic infrastructure and your overall stability won't drop, it even may increase a bit. This might not be true for the smallest civs like Genoa, Venice or Portugal since it requires a certain number of cities, but from there on it is expansion whenever you feel like it. Maybe the night watch should overwrite the manor house once it's constructed (like power plants in regular BtS), the manor houses' effects have become negligable already.

Civs have enough trouble as is expanding, usually becoming collapsed pathetic messes that kill entire regions.

*Edit* By "kill" I mean, the region they occupied stops playing a significant role in the game, i.e. independants

Yeah, thats something i don't like too. I would rather see overexpanding civs loose a couple of cities in unstable provinces and not collapse entirely.

It takes away alot of plasure if your overwhelming strong opponent vanishes completly within one turn, often without yourself taking any actions. It is no fun to conquer independant cities.

ah another thing which I didn't suggest :p
c'mon my english can't be that bad so that it can be so misinterpreted

e.g Ottomans should stop being able to expand once they have reached the limt of say 40 cities(all of Anatolia and the Balkans + a few Islands). If they expand even further and say go for Italy too or march into Austria, Germany, Russia whetever the limit could kick in. If they went for unstable areas instead of the balkans then they get into trouble a bit earlier. I'm not saying that they should immediately collapse one this happens, but simply a larger drop in stability depending on size(which iirc already is part of the game just doesn't have much of an impact)

Well the main concern about stability seems to me to be a lack of challenge for the human to keep his beyond-historical empire together. I agree that stability should be tougher for the human, especially after certain points like Daffy said. I'm all for tweaking stability for the human player but the last thing I want to see is more mega-independent civs from collapsing France, Germany, and the Ottomans (They are the biggest offenders in my experience).

One of the reasons why most of us complain about civs collapsing in the mod is that it's a much bigger deal than when a civ collapses in Vanilla RFC. In Vanilla, the civs and their war maps are packed so tightly together that before long the independents are usually assimilated into another civ before the previous civ re-spawns. In RFC Europe, when the Ottomans' huge Eastern empire collapses, there really isn't anything that anyone can do about it. It results in completely dead North Africa, Levant, Turkey, and Balkans and that entire area of the map exiting from gameplay until somebody re-spawns.

In my opinion, collapsing is too grave a matter in this mod to be so common among the computer-controlled civs. I think that cities, or groups of cities should declare independence a lot more often. Civs that were conquered by empires that are now unstable should re-spawn more often. When you think about it historically, not a lot of civs ever collapsed. They've all been reduced by wars and revolts within the empire, but few have ever completely and utterly collapsed and given birth to a multitude of city states. Of course, collapse is an essential part of RFC, but I think it should occur in more extreme circumstances, like if an empire is still unstable after a few cities + a civ have all declared independence or if stability is really experiencing a "shock" like what you get when the Mongols invade.

Basically, I think we should see a civ that isn't doing so well slowly crumble until it's down to its core before anything more drastic happens. It's better for gameplay as territory is gradually taken over by growing and re-spawning civs which means less giant independent empires putting 10% of the map at a time out of action. I'm really keen on the re-spawning civs after a collapse. I mean after all, what do the indy civs represent? Exactly that, independent civs, such as Burgundy coming back during France's decline or a re-spawned Cordoba coming back to take over Algeria or the Arabs taking over Egypt as the Ottomans begin to collapse after over expanding. This will help to "check" warmongering civs once in a while instead of handing them the ultimate punishment for capturing one city too many.

Lastly, the AI should make peace more often. I've never seen a France that just captured Barcelona or a Spain that only captured Bordeaux, it's always one civ dead and half-owned by the civ that killed them. War shouldn't be a matter of life or death for the civ. I mean if a bigger civ is trying to finish off a dying Byzantium or Cordoba, that's different, but I dislike seeing dragged out showdowns between mega powers like France and Germany that inevitably end in collapse for one and then the other after over expanding.

It's missing tweaks like these that are needed in order for this to be called finished.

I was also thinking of making bad stability lead only to partial collapse, i.e. if you have more than 7 cities and huge instability, then only some cities would declare independence and the nation will not collapse completely.

France UP is too powerful in late game. In the early game, it helps with the first UHV that would be very hard without it. I wonder if we should cancel the French UHV after some point, either a tech or date (like UHV 2 date or Chivalry tech).

Hmm, cancelling a UP at a certain date removes some of the flavor of the civ though...Hmm... I would suggest changing the UP entirely so it's not related to stability, and instead make the stability map/provinces more OK and less unstable, and then at a certain date change the values back to unstable, if doing such is possible.

Hmm, cancelling a UP at a certain date removes some of the flavor of the civ though...Hmm... I would suggest changing the UP entirely so it's not related to stability, and instead make the stability map/provinces more OK and less unstable, and then at a certain date change the values back to unstable, if doing such is possible.

Province stability is dynamic and France is losing many of their OK and stable provinces upon Burgundian and German spawns. I will think about a potentially different UP.

What about faster great general generation and some kinds of benefits for having a great general present? Like extra stability for the civ as long as the general is winning battles, also better diplomatic relations with general present maybe? (Other civs will be intimidated)

This represents the number of French 'warrior kings', as one way to put it, that had such a huge effect on France. I'm talking about Charlemagne, Joan of Arc, Napoleon... individuals that were both military and political leaders.

With double great general emergence, a general should spawn just as the first French UHV is being completed, giving the stability boost to not collapse, hopefully. It would be a single boost of stability of like 5 to 10 points that decays over time, but can be increased by one whenever the general wins a battle.

By the closing stages of the game, if a player was skillful enough he would have enough generals to essentially conquer Europe, Napoleon style. Getting the historical empire with the usual stability would be impossible, but as long as Napoleon keeps winning, the people throw their full support behind the empire. :)

Getting the historical empire with the usual stability would be impossible, but as long as Napoleon keeps winning, the people throw their full support behind the empire. :)

I think that would be too easy. It is possible with the current UP, and I got close as Germany in Beta 13. Endgame stability should not be leveled up but toned down for larger civs, I hope I can make that clear. The idea adds some flavour but is horribly unbalanced. As France I already generate enough GGs to build 4 or 5 strength Knights, who could invade some minor civs to grab some stability.

As France is the oldest political entity of Europe, maybe we could do something with that? For example, +1 citizen located in the capital for each city conquered, or no negative stability for enemies controlling solid areas? The major problem is that the human player is unlikely to stick to the historical boundaries, so a cumulative bonus could get out of hand quickly and a passive one could be useless in many games.

How about we represent the way French "culture" has attracted many foreign artists or scientists throughout its history, for example by giving a free specialist for each culture point after the BFC (in each city, or if that's too OP, only in the Capital) ? That way the French player would have an incentive to be the cultural powerhouse it really was (at least during the renaissance).

How about we represent the way French "culture" has attracted many foreign artists or scientists throughout its history, for example by giving a free specialist for each culture point after the BFC (in each city, or if that's too OP, only in the Capital) ? That way the French player would have an incentive to be the cultural powerhouse it really was (at least during the renaissance).

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=299227&page=7

If we do that then I think the UP should be activated in the Renaissance, doesn't make so much sense in the middle of the dark ages.

I think that would be too easy. It is possible with the current UP, and I got close as Germany in Beta 13. Endgame stability should not be leveled up but toned down for larger civs, I hope I can make that clear. The idea adds some flavour but is horribly unbalanced. As France I already generate enough GGs to build 4 or 5 strength Knights, who could invade some minor civs to grab some stability.

Well the exact effects can be calculated to be anything if it's OPed. The idea of faster generation of GGs can be discarded, the main idea is that the great general is "putting the team on his shoulders" and basically keeping France together with his military and political genius. :king:

Perhaps the great general effects could be limited to only one general at a time? Or, winning battles, in whatever amount necessary (2 wins = 1 point, 3 wins = 1point, etc...) will take away negative expansion points but never go over 0? That adds a bit of difficulty. I was thinking that the great general should also give another small bonus to France, something culture or commerce related to represent the prosperity of France under this leader. Maybe the birth of the great general could result in a short Golden Age?

I like giving France something culture related, but I think the UP has to somewhat more directly help out with the first UHV.
This UP is very similar to the present one, but I think it's more fun and based more on something historical kind of.

I agree that the UP should somehow help with the first UHV, I think the effects of a GG only come into play after the first UHV, it is unlikely that the player generates a GG that soon. The UB is very useful for early production that slowly decreases in relation to other buildings later on. However, the game goes on till presumably 1600AD, which means there are many ways to somehow trick the system. I don't have anything against that in principal but excesses need to be avoided when possible. If anything, I think the UP should not encourage even more expansion, as it is already possible to conquer Napoleon's empire. When a GG has to kill 3 troops (example) to get one stability point, he can accumulate perhaps 1, 2 until 840 (if the player manages to spawn one at all), but after that, he can simply send him to any place that has cheap troops that can be killed easily. Then suicide him and attach one to a 6 strength Teutonic Knight, or not if we don't allow the player to have more than one GG. If such a unit becomes invincible it's basically a free ride towards any goal you want to, including conquest victory (you'll have to kill the Turks on spawn though, I experienced).

I was thinking of something else, but unfortunately, that won't help so much with the first UHV, and it might be very much OP as well. If France holds a unit in enemy territory for at least one turn, other units can use roads on that plot. This way, a land bridge can be created and warfare goes much quicker, if done well. Maybe this even could be applied to other civs as well, I'll have to think about that. It certainly would make warefare much quicker and defending cities much harder.

If we do that then I think the UP should be activated in the Renaissance, doesn't make so much sense in the middle of the dark ages.

I agree

I was thinking of something else, but unfortunately, that won't help so much with the first UHV, and it might be very much OP as well. If France holds a unit in enemy territory for at least one turn, other units can use roads on that plot. This way, a land bridge can be created and warfare goes much quicker, if done well. Maybe this even could be applied to other civs as well, I'll have to think about that. It certainly would make warefare much quicker and defending cities much harder.

This brings to mind a kind of engineer unit. A unit enabled probably by a tech in the 1500s or 1600s. It would be like a worker unit that's more expensive that can't build economic improvements but can build roads in friendly and enemy territory (or an engineer could just stand on the enemy road for a turn, as you suggested, and it would be made usable), forts in friendly territory, earthworks in enemy territory and siege works outside of enemy cities. Roads built by an engineer could only be used by the builder, earthworks would provide a defense bonus smaller than that of the fort, and siege works right next to an enemy city would defend the units from the star fort's damage per turn, and give a small defense bonus. Also, no income from any worked tiles in a one tile radius. If the 1 tile radius of the city is sealed off by the radii of 2 or more siege works (or maybe just one siege works if un-sieged tiles have mountains), then the city is under siege: No trade or income from any worked tile. Walls, castles, and star forts would each lessen the consequences of siege to varying degrees. The engineer would have 4 or 5 strength, since it's a military unit, but not really designed for fighting battles.

I know, I know, great idea but it's too late. :lol: I'll write this down with a list of other ideas I have for 2.0.

Welcome,

Thanks for good map of the Europe. I love to play it. But, I think, there is missing one river in Poland (Galicia region). The San:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_(river)

Length of the river: 433 km


I added this river in my game in WB:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=312822&stc=1&d=1328192713

Why to add it?
- San is not a small river, but medium. It is also a realy important river to region (in a past for farming).

Why not to add?
- Maybe there is enough of rivers in Galicia?

Is there is possible to add San to RFC Europe?

Thanks for the suggestion, we will keep it in mind. We are about ready to release the final version of the mod and we are a bit reluctant to make changes, but if the river has a small effect, we can add it. However, your image does not load for some reason.

Thanks for the suggestion, we will keep it in mind. We are about ready to release the final version of the mod and we are a bit reluctant to make changes, but if the river has a small effect, we can add it. However, your image does not load for some reason.

Speaking of which, when is the 'deadline' for 1.0? After all it's now february, so I hope everything that has to be done can be done.:)

Speaking of which, when is the 'deadline' for 1.0? After all it's now february, so I hope everything that has to be done can be done.:)

I am starting my new job on Monday (Feb 6). I wanted to be done with 1.0 this week, but we can wait one more week. I hope I will not be overwhelmed the very first week and will have time over the weekend. Next weekend is looking like a realistic date.

I am pretty happy about the AI balance, only Spanish AI seems OP-ish in the latest version. Others get strong, but now always. Also Portugal is too weak.

I wish to get couple of UHV fixes too, some UHV conditions can be improved, but this is a small matter.

Welcome,

Once again about map of Poland -

Is it not too few of amber on polish baltic coast? There are only one place with amber on Bornholm (Danish island, 588,5 km²), and second source in Lithuania near Neman river.

Ok, maybe someone could say - it is enough. But what about the reality? Please look at this maps:

http://www.scienceinschool.org/repository/images/issue19amber1_l.jpg

http://files.myopera.com/nielsol/blog/baltic_amber_map.jpg

http://signature-gems.com/Amber/Baltic_Amber_Map.jpg

Also, this is the amber road in the past:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Amber_Road.jpg


So, maybe we need to remove the amber from Bornholm, and add it on Delta of Vistula?

I do not know what is possibly to place in Bornholm instead of amber. I heard, that on this isle there are resources of salt, granite and sandstone; so maybe stone or salt? There is not too many of stone in near of Bornholm... so, maybe stone would be a strategical resource (we need it to build walls and castles more faster). It could be a good place to rivalry for Germany, Denmark and Poland.

Hi narvego,

thanks for your input. Unfortunately a number of the main modders are busy with real life right now. I just started a new job and AbsintheRed (who is the main map guy) is taking exams at his University. I don't want you to think that you are being ignored, it is just that it will probably take some time before we can properly get back to modding. You input it welcome of course.

PS: I certainly wouldn't make a good English teacher, however, you should probably start your posts with "Hi" as opposed to "Welcome". "Welcome" is the greeting that someone would use if they are host or have been involved in the mod for awhile.