1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Alternatives for preset cities

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall: Europe' started by AbsintheRed, May 1, 2016.

  1. gilgames

    gilgames Priest-King

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    Budapest, Hungary
    I have to see the spot, but all seems good, Do you also remove Gerec/Graz (ami tkp Grác magyarul is) and use Zagreb instead or or we will have both?
    Lübeck change is welcome too, the current spot is really bad.
    Imo Crimea province is fine, you should split Aquitania, Kiev and Novgorod! Also Crimea can support 2 good cities or 1 for resources.
     
  2. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    938
    Maybe just change the Genoan UHV to control at least one city in each province, similar to Poland's? That probably won't affect the other UHV provinces as one city will pretty much cover them.
     
  3. El Bogus

    El Bogus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    369
    Location:
    Leipzig, Germany
    I agree with Swarbs. It's probably the easiest solution.
    On the other hand, it would not hurt to make the Genoan UHV a little harder.
     
  4. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Actually no, the easiest solution is to leave it as it is now :)
    It's not worse for gameplay, so it will remain this way for 1.5.

    We will see what to do with it after the provinces are updated.
    Even if Crimea won't be split, I plan a bigger UHV overhaul after it's done.
     
  5. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    It's mainly there to represent Crimea in the second half of the game.
    But I also wanted it to be in place by the Kievan spawn, in case they manage to grab it it's a good base position for the Crimean peninsula.
    Didn't find any good dates in the 8-9-10th century though, that's the only reason it currently starts in 500AD as a Greek colony.
    I will gladly change it if someone has a better idea/suggestion!
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2017
  6. DC123456789

    DC123456789 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,908
    Location:
    Canada
    Wouldn't it make more sense for Kievan' Rus to settle Oleshye or Tmutarakan for a Black City colony though?
     
  7. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    The Kievan Rus' tends to settle a little north of that in the current iteration of the mod. The AI rarely reaches out to the Black Sea coast, first they go for the core territory of the Rus'.
    And it's more or less intentional, those areas were less imporant historically for the Rus' (and they had less impact on them) if I'm not mistaken.

    With war the AI have a better chance to grab the city. Also the area isn't totally empty anymore.
    But these don't have a too significant effect on gameplay. I'm willing to remove the city if we don't find a historically plausible solution.
     
  8. DC123456789

    DC123456789 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,908
    Location:
    Canada
    Well, what I really meant to say is that I don't think it really matter much whether or not Kievan Rus' can conquer it for a Black Sea port. I think spawning it in the 15th century (or possibly the 13th, as a barbarian Mongol city) would work fine for the purposes of representing Crimea, since it's not like anyone ever settles there before that point anyway.
     
  9. 2phunkey4u

    2phunkey4u West-Eastern Divan

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    490
    Location:
    way out west
    I think there are two historically sensible solutions for Crimea: a) spawn Chersonesos in 500 AD or b) spawn Kaffa in 1200 AD. Both were small port cities that the Geonese took over.
    From a player's perspective, I'd rather see Crimea left empty so I can settle Perekop 1S which I think is the most viable spot for a city on the peninsula.
     
  10. DC123456789

    DC123456789 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,908
    Location:
    Canada
    The point is to represent the Crimean Khanate though, not the Greek (and later Genoese and Ottoman) cities on the southern shore.
     
  11. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    @2phunkey4u
    While Chersonesos and Kaffa were arguably more important historically, the goal was/is indeed to represent the Crimean Khanate in a way.
     
  12. SanJose

    SanJose Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2012
    Messages:
    685
    Location:
    Moscow
    Best way for represent Crimean Khanate - harass southern borders of the Moscow state by barbs or add new civ.
    Also on Perekop's spot can place a fort with chance convert to city In the 14th-15th centuries.
    The peninsula itself needs further redesign.
     
  13. gilgames

    gilgames Priest-King

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    Budapest, Hungary
    I would appreciate if you could move that city 1 tile to west. Simply for gameplay reasons. So the other city on the south could be better, and it will still block the entrance to the peninsula. thx
     
  14. 2phunkey4u

    2phunkey4u West-Eastern Divan

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Messages:
    490
    Location:
    way out west
    Sorry, I did not get that, also due to the fact that you have the city spawn in 500 AD already. With some "good will for inaccuracy", you could spawn Qırım/Stary Krym on a coastal spot in the 13th century which could become Kaffa/Kefe/Feodosia upon conquest. As an alternative, you could slighty incease the Rus' propensity to settle Kerch which could also serve as a spot that could be reasonably passed on later to Tatars, Genoese and Ottomans.

    All in all, I'm rather inclined to argue for leaving Crimea empty as cities like Qirim and Bakhchisaray might be best to represent the Khanate on the one hand, but on the other, being close, non-coastal, they would totally mess up the city placement for other civs with an interest in the area.
     
  15. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Yeah, this was the main reason I chose Perekop. It doesn't mess up city placement on the southern coast of the peninsula.
    We will have to revisit this anyway when Crimea is introduced as a full civ. This is to represent them somehow until that happens.
     

Share This Page