Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

[The Turk]

My knowledge on medieval Arabia is limited, but you seem to know a lot about that era The Turk: does that leaderhead fit historically as an Abu Bakr stand in? Face, facial hair, clothes? If we're out to get accuracy, we should do it right

Edit: the more I think of it, some representation of Harun al-Rashid would be even better ...

Edit2: what about the LHs embryodead used for the Ghorids and Oman in SoI? Both at least "feel" fitting as Abu Bakr.

mmmm..... Well definetly not the Ghorid LH, the Omani LH might work though... but the background would need to change. I think though that the LH I recommended below (even if he looks like an advisor ) would be best. We shouldn't delve too deep into this, that what I'm trying to say. As long as you have a better represented LH thats better.

Also I was wondering if you are planning on adding the Cordobans/ Moroccans to the game, in some way? I would recommend respawning the Carthaginians/ Phoenicians as the Moroccans/Cordobans, as that way you could have them controlling bits of Southern Spain, before their ultimate reconquest. But I'll leave it up to you to decide in the end. Perhaps shrinking the Spanish spawn zone and moving their capital to Leon would be a good idea (I did this early in my own mod, and it worked quite well). But once again its up to you.

 

[AOS9001]

Also I was wondering if you are planning on adding the Cordobans/ Moroccans to the game, in some way? I would recommend respawning the Carthaginians/ Phoenicians as the Moroccans/Cordobans, as that way you could have them controlling bits of Southern Spain, before their ultimate reconquest. But I'll leave it up to you to decide in the end. Perhaps shrinking the Spanish spawn zone and moving their capital to Leon would be a good idea (I did this early in my own mod, and it worked quite well). But once again its up to you.

That'd be fun, except Leon in normal RFC is one of the worst cities you can have in
Spain. I think it's beyond the point where historical accuracy interferes with good gameplay. You could always move your settler elsewhere, but the AI doesn't know how to do that.

 

[The Turk]

lol, just make the spot better then, problem solved
Anyways, you could have Madrid as part of the Cordoban Empire or an independent Muslim Taifa, but when the Spanish reconquer it, it automatically gets a palace, and becomes their capital, and then you can have Leon be pushed into obscurity, by making it a town (if you want of course...)

 

[AOS9001]

lol, just make the spot better then, problem solved

Well, you've got two sea food resources, but you're one square inland. You can't build workboats from there, you can't get harbor/lighthouse for the health and food bonus, plus, you have those pesky Portuguese right there. How do you propose to make the spot better?

 

[The Turk]

Well, you don't need to make it TERRIBLY better, perhaps just move a resource closer to them, and this would make it VERY important for the AI/human to recapture Madrid ASAP, so that they can get their optimal spot right there. IMO that makes the most sense.

 

[SanePerson]

You could put a sea tile next to the Leon spot, but that's going a bit too far.

 

[Leoreth]

Iberia is already very tight for its current two civs, so I really don't know how to fit Umayyads/Cordoba in.

I'll try out the Omani leaderhead with Cethegus' background next time I'm motivated to continue modding.

At the moment I'm very frustrated with the city ruins problem that result from a resurrection switch. I tried several approaches via Python but none did work, which caused me to procrastinate and add other features or debate here about tangential leaderhead issues Not that that's bad, but it'd be even better to see some progress.

@embryodead, in case you read this:
Could you please elaborate a little more on the purpose of the setLayoutDirty(bool) function? How could it possibly be related to the ruin graphics? What does it do exactly? If it should revert the city to proper city graphics, I don't know what's wrong with the loop in setCurrentEra(), because it seems to "catch" every city. Is setCurrentEra() even called when the civ is switched? You see, I couldn't figure out from the code itself how everything belongs together here.

And in case you don't read this:
I'd better write you a PM

 

[AOS9001]

Well, you don't need to make it TERRIBLY better, perhaps just move a resource closer to them, and this would make it VERY important for the AI/human to recapture Madrid ASAP, so that they can get their optimal spot right there. IMO that makes the most sense.

I still think it's a un-optimal spot, but that's a good point. It gives very good incentive for a fast re-conquest of Spain. Which they're gonna need to do if they want that UHV. And a Carthage respawn as Almorahvids/Morocco/Generic North African Nation would be quite nice, giving Mali an actual enemy besides Impis and Camel Archer barbs.

 

[civ_king]

I still think it's a un-optimal spot, but that's a good point. It gives very good incentive for a fast re-conquest of Spain. Which they're gonna need to do if they want that UHV. And a Carthage respawn as Almorahvids/Morocco/Generic North African Nation would be quite nice, giving Mali an actual enemy besides Impis and Camel Archer barbs.

How about simply the Moors?

 

[Magnificent One]

Isn't Iberia already cramped without the Moors?

 

[Leoreth]

It is.

 

[Cethegus]

Here's a question for you, Turk: if Australia was added in RFC, which would you consider Sydney Opera House to be? World wonder, or the national wonder Opera House? Weighing in both its pros and cons, which is more convincing?

 

[rigo92]

Why not use Oviedo (which is the tile where the mountain used to be in the north-west of the iberian peninsula) as the first spanish capital? After all, the kingdom of Asturias was THE FIRST christian kingdom in the iberian peninsula, its a good spot for a city, it has access to two clam, fish, cow (or was it sheep?) and iron. We could give the moors only one city, granada, in the spot where sevilla would normally be (right above the hill that is at the very bottom of the peninsula, this is where they managed to remain historically, until the christian kings finally decided to push them out of spain, taking granada).

This could fullfill the purpose, for historical accuracy, of ACTUALLY building "la mezquita" in southern spain which is pretty tough to do right now as the arabs. As for Madrid, Madrid wasn't the spanish capital until king phillip II decided to make it into the capital in the 16th century (thats 800+ years after the spanish spawn), before that sevilla (which is where we will place the moorish city, except the moors could call it granada, or cordoba) was the capital. The player could still build madrid if so wished, but it shouldn't be a historical requirement as it became the capital pretty late imo.

For example, Istanbul is not the capital of turkey anymore, although it was for quite a while, and it is still represented in-game as staying as the capital. Before Phillip II showed up, seville was not only the capital, but also managed the colonies, even after the court was moved to madrid, sevilla still managed the colonies although it was controlled by madrid. I am suggesting, for gameplay purposes, that the capital be moved to sevilla once conquered from the moors and not to madrid. In my experience playing spain, the best way to fully use Iberia is with 3 mega-cities, where none steals tiles from the other, those 3 cities are Oviedo, Sevilla and Barcelona, Madrid's position in the center would make it "leech" from the other cities, madrid might be good in a bigger map, but not in the one in RFC.

As for barcelona, I think it's best that it is simply founded by spain, as usual, rather than introducing an independent civ or conquered by the moors, let's just keep it simple giving the moors the 1 southern city I explained and have spain spawn with 2 settlers perhaps, which should be used to found, besides obviously Oviedo, ideally barcelona (if the human player, too avoid being too deterministic, the AI could found Bilbao, Valencia or another city once in a while.)

I am not sure if my ideas will come across as too extreme, but I feel what I suggested is best for gaming purposes. My main frustration was not being able to build la mezquita in southern spain. The only other problem I see is that la mezquita requires islam, so if the spanish conquer the moorish city they will keep the building (which they did IRL, it was simply converted to a catholic church), but Islam will stay there, IRL all muslims and jews where expelled from spain. To solve this, maybe we could have a one-off exception where spain can remove islam from the moorish city, yet keep the la mezquita wonder or an event to the same effect or give them an inquisitor ability like in rfc europe (although the last option could be unfair as spain already has a sea-related UP).

All in all, I don't think Iberia should be too complex, as there really should only be 3 cities (until portugal shows up that is, but spain doesn't settle in portugal anyway, neither should the moors, to keep things simple.)

 

[dcode147]

I strongly agree as well that something should be done to represent Islam's nearly 800 years of influence in Southern Spain and Northwestern Africa. Something perhaps to represent Moor and Berbers. Again, maybe "independent" cities with Islam are the way to go. In order to not make the "independent" city locations influence Spanish city placement, "independent" cities could perhaps be made to be auto-razed. Then change the other "Independent" civ name to "Neutral." "Neutral" cities would represent friendlier minor powers while "independent" cities would represent more hostile minor powers. Player civ cities would be able to trade with neutral cities and players would have open borders with neutral cities renegotiated automatically after ever 10 turns or so if player hasn't declared war on neutral.

Examples of independent cities: Granada (a weak military threat Spain has to take care of in order to unify its core areas before it can seriously attempt to achieve its UHVs), Dùn Èideann (an enemy for England to take care of first before it can just freely take over the British isles), Meroe (to challenge Egypt's southward expansion), Hattasusa (it sucks that Pheonicians always keep this sucky city after they conquer it), several cities that could represent other Chinese states prior to their unification.

I feel like a minimally adjusted Spain would be able to hold a weak Granada

Spoiler :

Again, the benefit of these "independent" cities would be that they would provide military targets for player civs without limiting city placement options. (kinda like how barbarian camps were like in civ 3, but they have more defense and are more a bit annoying due to their weak culture). The effect of their culture would still not be overpowering because the core area would still be considered part of the respective civ's core area. Hence >80% "independent" culture needed for tile around Grenada to belong to "independent" instead of Spain.

Examples of neutral cities: other cities such as Rome, Kyiv, Mombasa, and most other cities that currently exist as independent...

 

[dcode147]

Also regarding Romans, I don't understand why they have to only represent Western Roman empire instead of the entire Roman empire. I think Roman stability maps, settler maps, continent/war maps and production bonuses should be adjusted (and maybe even add more scripted events for help AI Romans) so that they are in a better condition to replicate the real Roman empire. In most games I don't see Romans obtaining any cities in Egypt, Asia Minor, or the Levant. And their UHV should be adjusted so that their game doesn't involve them to try and unrealistically defend the Western Roman empire for 500 years longer than it actually existed, but instead to have a goal that makes them more focused on the east from 500-1500AD that way they would come to represent the Byzantines more. Byzantine language may have been Greek, but they are still politically a continuation of the very Roman Empire itself.

I agree for the 600AD start the Byzantines should be its own civ. But for the 3000BC start could the Romans be adjusted so that they would represent the actual Roman empire (including its eastern conquests which by 100AD is already becoming the backbone of the empire's economy) and then through scripted events and other changes evolve to represent the Byzantines (aka, switch palace to Constantinople, spawn some units in east so Roman AI wouldn't be screwed if barbarians take over west which they can be made to most certainly do take over the west)?

PS: Has anything been done to strengthen Mumbai? Traditionally its considered India's strongest city and Delhi is considered India's "second city", yet I think Delhi's location is far, far superior to Mumbai's. I guess cities that I like but are of less concern to gameplay/might not have an easy solution to remedy are Alexandria, Damascus, Venice, New York and Los Angeles.

I can't remember who mentioned Baghdad not being a sufficiently prominent city, but I agree that Baghdad should be already founded in the 600AD start. When the Arabs take it over, a scripted event could switch their palace from Mecca to Baghdad. Maybe for human players, there could be a prompt that asks whether player wants to switch capital to Baghdad. This would also make for an interested idea for a new Mongol UHV idea . Conquer the capital city of 6 separate civilizations, easiest ones would prolly end up being Beijing, Moscow, Baghdad, Delhi, Tokyo, Wien. This UHV would get the Mongols in conflict with many of the civs they were historically in conflict in, plus I think it might be a fun UHV.

PPS: RFC DoC has officially become my most played mod this week

 

[AOS9001]

Also regarding Romans, I don't understand why they have to only represent Western Roman empire instead of the entire Roman empire. I think Roman stability maps, settler maps, continent/war maps and production bonuses should be adjusted (and maybe even add more scripted events for help AI Romans) so that they are in a better condition to replicate the real Roman empire. In most games I don't see Romans obtaining any cities in Egypt, Asia Minor, or the Levant. And their UHV should be adjusted so that their game doesn't involve them to try and unrealistically defend the Western Roman empire for 500 years longer than it actually existed, but instead to have a goal that makes them more focused on the east from 500-1500AD that way they would come to represent the Byzantines more. Byzantine language may have been Greek, but they are still politically a continuation of the very Roman Empire itself.

I agree for the 600AD start the Byzantines should be its own civ. But for the 3000BC start could the Romans be adjusted so that they would represent both halves of the Roman empire and then through scripted events and other changes evolve to represent the Byzantines?

I approve of that idea. I think it could work very well for a human player, but the AI would definitely need prompting to go and get stuff done. The settler maps are a help, but that doesn't guarantee they'll go empire making.

 

[dcode147]

I approve of that idea. I think it could work very well for a human player, but the AI would definitely need prompting to go and get stuff done. The settler maps are a help, but that doesn't guarantee they'll go empire making.

Yeah... AI Romans might need a bit of unit spawns and city flips scripted for them since their fights are scattered over various continents and AI has trouble with multiple continents.

On the other hand, maybe the continents can be redrawn to incorporate the entire eastern Mediterranean under one continent? It doesn't appear the Romans are the only ones with problems fighting in that area. It seems like Arabs aren't able to make any serious attempts to capture Constantinople. As a historian I am saddened that RFC or modmods based on it still cannot recreate such important turning points such as the Battle of Tours and the Second Siege of Constantinople, but I guess there are just certain things a game simulation of history cannot recreate. Lack of an Arab siege of Constantinople I could do without however...

 

[rigo92]

dcode's idea is interesting, although I feel that it is not necessary to edit the iberian peninsula itself. Why not have the moorish city at sevilla? (that would be just NW of the extra land tile where granada is in the screenshot) The AI usually founds Sevilla anyway. Also at any rate, wherever the moorish city is placed, the specific tile should be removed from spain's spawn area (so as to not get it right away). To counter the fact that spain will have 4 cities (3 starting settlers + the moorish city) spain should probably start with one less settler.

Also, regarding la mezquita, I think that there should be a scripted event so that it is automatically built in the moorish city in 957 AD (as it was the moors, not the spanish who built it) and when conquered by Spain the wonder remains there but Islam is removed. I suggest having that date (rather than it being pre-built) to not be too deterministic and also allow a human playing as arabia to build it if they so desire, all they have to do is beat that date.

 

[Magnificent One]

Perhaps an Inquistitor unit should be in the game,if not already.

 

[Sandmonster1989]

The Moors could represent some influence in S. Italy as well... you wouldn't really have to change Carthage's stability and whatnot maps much because thats what they had.

Leoreth: I don't really know much about modding so I wouldn't be able to change city names to submit... I'm sorry. I gues I didn't realize how much work went into adding city names. I love dcode's ideas about the Roman empire becoming the Byzantines. Maybe you could change their civ names to call Rome the Byzantines after a certain point in time?