[WIP][BNW]Into the Renaissance Deluxe

[JFD]

The two most interesting events of the scenario, unchanged. At least make the mongols have Islam as they state religion, perhaps?

Nope. I don't respond well to Sardines.

Please don't.

If anything, add an event that gives them a random religion after a few turns of tengriism or just let them choose on their own.

The Mongols really don't need - and mechanically shouldn't have - a State Religion.

 

[Tarmont]

HUH?!
Would you have them converted to orthodoxy? Cause' that's the situation in the original scenario.

I see no issue with that. Let the other civilizations bother about converting the Mongols.

 

[Natan35]

Oh, the moment they become Jewish...
(And why not? Mongols can into religion)

 

[JFD]

Oh, the moment they become Jewish...
(And why not? Mongols can into religion)

Because their sole purpose is to wreck havoc upon Europe. They're neither going to be concerned with keeping their piety high, nor are they going to be able - capturing Orthodox cities (the first ones they'll go after) will tank their Piety, and without access to standard decisions, events, or a human brain, they won't be able to compensate for that. The Mongols are not playing the same game as you.

And I thoroughly expect the Jews will have become extinct by the time of the Mongol invasion. Their religious pressure is invariably going to be too weak to be historically sustainable.

 

[Uighur_Caesar]

And I thoroughly expect the Jews will have become extinct by the time of the Mongol invasion.

The Final Solution?

 

[spendabuck]

When you think about it, it isn't even really historical to give the Mongols a state religion; while traditional beliefs were the most common religion, the Mongols didn't care what religion you followed as long as you were loyal to the Khan. Across the empire you could find Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, etc.

 

[Natan35]

Huh? JFD, I'd also suggest keeping the number of Jews the same thought the sceanrio . they migrated, not disappeared.

 

[Zantonius Hamm]

The game doesn't work that way, Natan.

 

[COF]

You are certainly asking for a lot of work towards a minor aspect of the mod here, Natan. Don't be so selfish.

 

[JFD]

Huh? JFD, I'd also suggest keeping the number of Jews the same thought the sceanrio . they migrated, not disappeared.

Like ZH says, the game doesn't work like that. Jews in Europe face +95 Catholic pressure from game start (exerting no pressure on their own, because they have no dominant cities or a Holy City nearby), in Byzantium they face about the same Orthodox pressure, and in Jerusalem they face +45 Islamic pressure (to which they get +45 pressure themselves from Jerusalem being their Holy City) - but they're a very minor aspect, and cannot take dominance lest it go against the design of the scenario (as a crusade against Muslims, not Jews). Just be content that I actually bothered to include them. I'll have the occasional diaspora event to help them out, but otherwise I am neither willing nor able to do much more for them.

With Judaism, I have already six religions over the original four. Like Romuva, they are merely for flavour, and in no way intended to affect the gameplay (unless you're micro-managey or lucky enough to construct a Synagogue before the Jews die out, which is at least entirely possible in Spain and Byzantium and for anyone who captures Jerusalem and/or Antioch).

 

[Natan35]

You are certainly asking for a lot of work towards a minor aspect of the mod here, Natan. Don't be so selfish.

Tell that to Hitler.
Also, will Poland be able to form Poland Lithuania? (By either incorporating Lithuania or becoming allied with it via a decision)
(Sorry but Poland is my favorite European country)

 

[JFD]

I'd say so, yeah. Someone's gotta proselytize those Romuvans! And His Holiness shall reward thee with a new title

 

[janboruta]

I'd say so, yeah. Someone's gotta proselytize those Romuvans! And His Holiness shall reward thee with a new title

But to form the Commonwealth you'd have to own Gdansk as well.

 

[Natan35]

So... Who's the polish leader? Casimir I?

 

[Redaxe]

Yeah, it's why I'm hesitant to go to great lengths on this scenario - because I simply can't do anything about the AI. Though perhaps the CP - which the scenario requires for P&P - will give the AI some more intelligence. Hopefully...

Hmmm I'm just thinking that it could be quite easy to simulate at least part of the first crusade by placing a crusader army from each of the major Western European powers (English, Franks etc) in the Levant (outside a Turkish held Antioch, Tripoli and further South at Jerusalem and possibly other locations) at the start of the game.

The Crusader armies would have enough soldiers to immediately attack and capture each city that they are placed near (but certainly not enough to initially challenge the muslim capitals). So the intention is that the Scenario would start basically as the 1st Crusade is already underway and would give the European States increased contact with the Islamic states.
Presumably once the Crusaders capture cities like Antioch and Jerusalem they will have a very difficult task in holding their territories given the distance and difficulty in reinforcing themselves. Typically because of the location one would expect that the Crusader states would lose their holdings as happened in history - which as I mentioned above is largely due to the disadvantage of distance that the Western Europeans faced.

The only issue I can see is one of historical continuity because the wars between the Europeans and Muslims would start immediately at 1095 which doesn't factor in the time it took for the campaigns to start and also separating the Crusader armies by Civ and by city (which ignores the specific journey they took from Constantinople. Nonetheless I think this would be a simple way to stimulate confrontation between the Western Crusader and Muslim States which otherwise doesn't happen in this campaign.

What do others think? It would certainly give this scenario a bit more early action than it does now.

Here's a map of how the early crusade could look like
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=First_Crusade#/media/File:Near_East_1135.svg

 

[Kerfuffle]

Spoiler :

Hmmm I'm just thinking that it could be quite easy to simulate at least part of the first crusade by placing a crusader army from each of the major Western European powers (English, Franks etc) in the Levant (outside a Turkish held Antioch, Tripoli and further South at Jerusalem and possibly other locations) at the start of the game.

The Crusader armies would have enough soldiers to immediately attack and capture each city that they are placed near (but certainly not enough to initially challenge the muslim capitals). So the intention is that the Scenario would start basically as the 1st Crusade is already underway and would give the European States increased contact with the Islamic states.
Presumably once the Crusaders capture cities like Antioch and Jerusalem they will have a very difficult task in holding their territories given the distance and difficulty in reinforcing themselves. Typically because of the location one would expect that the Crusader states would lose their holdings as happened in history - which as I mentioned above is largely due to the disadvantage of distance that the Western Europeans faced.

The only issue I can see is one of historical continuity because the wars between the Europeans and Muslims would start immediately at 1095 which doesn't factor in the time it took for the campaigns to start and also separating the Crusader armies by Civ and by city (which ignores the specific journey they took from Constantinople. Nonetheless I think this would be a simple way to stimulate confrontation between the Western Crusader and Muslim States which otherwise doesn't happen in this campaign.

What do others think? It would certainly give this scenario a bit more early action than it does now.

Here's a map of how the early crusade could look like
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=First_Crusade#/media/File:Near_East_1135.svg

The are a few problems with this:
- As far as I'm aware, there's no way to alter diplomatic relations before starting up the scenario, so you cannot force war in the beginning of the scenario. That is unless you change the settings to everyone is permanently at war. I haven't really touched the World Builder/Mod Buddy in a long while so I could be wrong on this one, but I'm still pretty sure.
- Even if the European civs have an army all the way in the Levant, would they actually do anything with them? The army is too far away from home and would likely just be called home to attack a neighbour much closer to themselves/defend themselves against a neighbour who has the same plan.
- You also have to factor in the AI's flavours, how aggressive they are towards city-states. Most of the time, they will seek to either bully a city-state or make it an ally, rather than actually capturing it for themselves (that is unless you are: the Mongols, the Huns, or AustriaHabsburgs - which are the most infamous for conquering city-states in-game).
- And finally, the AI is... well... the AI. Enough said

 

[JFD]

Hmmm I'm just thinking that it could be quite easy to simulate at least part of the first crusade by placing a crusader army from each of the major Western European powers (English, Franks etc) in the Levant (outside a Turkish held Antioch, Tripoli and further South at Jerusalem and possibly other locations) at the start of the game.

The Crusader armies would have enough soldiers to immediately attack and capture each city that they are placed near (but certainly not enough to initially challenge the muslim capitals). So the intention is that the Scenario would start basically as the 1st Crusade is already underway and would give the European States increased contact with the Islamic states.
Presumably once the Crusaders capture cities like Antioch and Jerusalem they will have a very difficult task in holding their territories given the distance and difficulty in reinforcing themselves. Typically because of the location one would expect that the Crusader states would lose their holdings as happened in history - which as I mentioned above is largely due to the disadvantage of distance that the Western Europeans faced.

The only issue I can see is one of historical continuity because the wars between the Europeans and Muslims would start immediately at 1095 which doesn't factor in the time it took for the campaigns to start and also separating the Crusader armies by Civ and by city (which ignores the specific journey they took from Constantinople. Nonetheless I think this would be a simple way to stimulate confrontation between the Western Crusader and Muslim States which otherwise doesn't happen in this campaign.

What do others think? It would certainly give this scenario a bit more early action than it does now.

Here's a map of how the early crusade could look like
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=First_Crusade#/media/File:Near_East_1135.svg

Because I invariably won't be playing, I'll wait until Jan passes judgement. But it is an idea that crossed my mind, so I'm definitely open to it.

The are a few problems with this:
- As far as I'm aware, there's no way to alter diplomatic relations before starting up the scenario, so you cannot force war in the beginning of the scenario. That is unless you change the settings to everyone is permanently at war. I haven't really touched the World Builder/Mod Buddy in a long while so I could be wrong on this one, but I'm still pretty sure.
- Even if the European civs have an army all the way in the Levant, would they actually do anything with them? The army is too far away from home and would likely just be called home to attack a neighbour much closer to themselves/defend themselves against a neighbour who has the same plan.
- You also have to factor in the AI's flavours, how aggressive they are towards city-states. Most of the time, they will seek to either bully a city-state or make it an ally, rather than actually capturing it for themselves (that is unless you are: the Mongols, the Huns, or AustriaHabsburgs - which are the most infamous for conquering city-states in-game).
- And finally, the AI is... well... the AI. Enough said

I start every Catholic at war with the Turks (maybe Ayyubids, too, IDK) and Spain and Portugal at war with the Almoravids. In addition, every Catholic begins in a defensive pact with the Papal States. Open Borders here and there could help?

On Progress:

Progress is steady, but at times arduous - because of my use of Piety, I have no need for much of Firaxis' code, and so I have to rewrite their entire script (though not entirely from scratch). I have thus far completed the core mechanics of religion, save the Protestant Reformation. The structure of natural wonder, resource, tech, building, wonder, and unit changes are mostly done. What remains is, of course, assigning civ traits - those that have new ones will not be getting anything convoluted, as per my changes to the other two scenarios - and effects for uniques, as well as coding the Mongol Invasion, discovery of the New World, and the HRE/Caliphate/Ecumenical Patriarch vote (which does have to be built from scratch, because I can't latch onto the World Congress in order to distinguish between who is eligible), designing and implementing the Social Policies, and implementing Events & Decisions (dunno yet whether there will be one or two unique decision per civ - depends how much work I can/want to do).

I will remove reference to the fact that you can ally or conquer Jerusalem to gain the founder benefits of your religion - notwithstanding the fact that this doesn't make much mechanical sense, it seems simply not to work (and perusing the forums on the original scenario seems to corroborate this fact). You will still gain the founder benefits from having conquered/allied either Avignon+Rome (Catholicism), Constantinople (Orthodoxy), Wittenberg (Protestantism), or Mecca (Islam). Each holy city you control will in addition to increasing your score (where the Holy City corresponds to your religion, or is Jerusalem) increase your piety threshold by 10 - there are 11 fixed Holy Cities: Rome (switches to Avignon if conquered), Constantinople (switches to the next Orthodox capital if captured), Wittenberg, Mecca, Jerusalem, Mecca, Cologne, Cairo, Vilnius, Zurich, and Tyrnovo.

Oh, and this scenario may not be supporting the random Europe map.

 

[Natan35]

Ummm... Isn't Jerusalem the holy city for Judaism?
Also, what units will be gifted by CS?

 

[Kerfuffle]

And it is now that I very vaguely recall seeing a set of diplomatic relations options in the world builder, whoops!

 

[janboruta]

Regarding the pre-placed Crusader units close to Jerusalem: that could work, but without a pitting Catholic civs at war from the start with the relevant civs and city-states, the AI would get too confused to move those troops in a desired direction. I was thinking that maybe fleets and embarked units could be placed close to the shores of Egypt and the Levant, just so they don't clutter up the countryside in Lesser Armenia, on their route to the Holy Land.

Another idea would be to simply put the cities in the Holy Land directly under crusading states' control, and still put them at war with the Muslims from the beginning. Like: give Antioch to the Sicilians (implicit Bohemond of Taranto), Jerusalem and Edessa to the French (implicit Baldwin I), and Acre to the English (just for balance), with some nice garrisons. That also frees up two city state slots that can be used elsewhere. Third one could be reclaimed by giving Cyprus to someone (England or Venice - but both would be anachronistic).

JFD, don't forget the cathar holy city. Although none is currently present on the map! Unless there could be a County of Toulouse, if we'd reclaim a city state from the Holy Land. That would close off France's southward settling direction, and would allow Avignon to be properly placed on the Rhone river.