Development thread for 1.5

[Swarbs]

He really wasn't. Very marginal figure, except that in the 19th century his character and role were vastly exaggerated. Compared to Matteo Ricci or William of Rubruck, we don't even have evidence of anything he said. Marco Polo is way too mythologized, and this wonder only plays to that mythologization.

But he was part of the medieval Silk Road, no matter how small. The wonder as I conceive it will represent the cultural, scientific and commercial aspect of the Silk Road, whilst the actual silk is represented by the Damascus and Constantinople terminus.

I agree that Marco Polo isn't the most important traveller of the time, but ultimately he is the most well recognised, and a valid figurehead for a wonder which would otherwise be very generic. Absinthe has said he wants the wonder to stay, so might as well have it something people will recognise.

It's not like there isn't precedent for that anyway. Krak de Chevaliers was no larger or more important than Vadum Jacob or Magrat at the time, but it is a wonder because it survived to the present day. Why is it Magellan's Voyage instead of Columbus or Cabot or one of the many others who preceded him? Copernicus' Observatory but nothing for Kepler, Brahe, Galileo or Newton? All the decisions around many wonders are fairly arbitrary, with the focus more on gameplay than actual historical fact.

On that note, can we just copy and paste Sword of Islam's Eastern Mediterranean/Middle East into the game? The map for England or Scandinavia is beautiful, but the Middle East looks really ugly. Makes more sense to just copy paste IMO. The reason I bring this up, is because SOI has silk resources next to Constantinople.

Don't agree with just copying it in tbh, There are some parts where the SOI map is better, like the Cilician Gates and Sinope being properly positioned on the isthmus, but also some inaccuracies (Jerusalem being level with Gaza, the Mount Lebanon range being right on the coast for example). This has obviously been done to fit as many viable cities and civs into the Levant as possible, but RFCE shouldn't be bound by the same.

 

[The Turk]

But he was part of the medieval Silk Road

What does this even mean? What is the "Silk Road"? How can you be a "part of" the "Silk Road"? He traveled in Asia, nothing he did is verifiable since no other sources mention him, and he returned and wrote a book, which was popular. There were plenty of travel accounts, and his book wasn't even the most popular. Marco Polo became popularized in the 1970s, especially amongst Italian Americans, along with Columbus (hence Columbus Day).

The wonder as I conceive it will represent the cultural, scientific and commercial aspect of the Silk Road, whilst the actual silk is represented by the Damascus and Constantinople terminus.

How is this relevant to culture? Science is represented by science research, Marco Polo did nothing for that. Commercial aspects, is just trade between countries. If you want to have actual access to the "Silk Road", or rather Indian Ocean trade, let's have an Indian Ocean trade resource.

I agree that Marco Polo isn't the most important traveller of the time, but ultimately he is the most well recognised

He is recognized by people today, doesn't mean he was important, or even relevant. The wonder is completely out of place, and can be replaced easily. Why have something for Marco Polo, when there is nothing for Cervantes' book: Don Quixote?

It's not like there isn't precedent for that anyway. Krak de Chevaliers was no larger or more important than Vadum Jacob or Magrat at the time, but it is a wonder because it survived to the present day. Why is it Magellan's Voyage instead of Columbus or Cabot or one of the many others who preceded him? Copernicus' Observatory but nothing for Kepler, Brahe, Galileo or Newton? All the decisions around many wonders are fairly arbitrary, with the focus more on gameplay than actual historical fact.

Because they actually did something during their time. And also because it makes sense to have those wonders for gameplay. Copernicus might be a plagiarizer, but he introduced important scientific concepts to a Western audience. All of these make sense in terms of gameplay and historical reality. Marco Polo's teleportation embassy does not.

Don't agree with just copying it in tbh, There are some parts where the SOI map is better, like the Cilician Gates and Sinope being properly positioned on the isthmus, but also some inaccuracies (Jerusalem being level with Gaza, the Mount Lebanon range being right on the coast for example). This has obviously been done to fit as many viable cities and civs into the Levant as possible, but RFCE shouldn't be bound by the same.

Obviously there are errors in the SOI map, its a flat 2D map.... you are NEVER going to find a perfect projection. Have you seen the RFCE map around the edges? Nonetheless the position of mountains, resources, cities, terrain types, is far better allocated than in RFCE. Just compare the interiors of Anatolia, or the Bekaa Valley. RFCE did an amazing job for England and Scandinavia, but the Middle East hasn't been changed, and looks bad.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Thanks for the praise on the nothern parts of the map!
I also did some map updates on Anatolia and the Levant a couple years ago, but I'm not entirely statisfied with it either.
While I agree with your criticism, my opinion is closer to Swarbs'. The map in SoI is far from perfect, at least for the needs of this mod.
Having said that, Anatolia will probably also get some smaller updates in 1.6.

The Marco Polo wonder will stay. If for nothing else, than out of respect for Sedna and some others who put together the first couple wonders for the mod.
On the other hand, I already said that I will remove the Silk and the TR bonuses as I also find them ahistoric and unintuitive for the effect.
I consider the wonder as a nod to the increasing interest in East Asian trade in Europe in the 12-13th century.
Given the nature of it, the wonder is pretty suited for a free merchant and some culture+trade bonuses.

On a related note:
Why do you push things so hard? You even seem to be offensive in many cases (I'm not sure if this is the correct phase in English, I mean constantly being on the offense).
I try to hear out and listen to most constructive criticism I get. No need to triumph your opinion over everyone, that most cerainly won't change mine. Only the constructive suggestions themselves have a chance for that.

 

[DC123456789]

On a related note:
Why do you push things so hard? You even seem to be offensive in many cases (I'm not sure if this is the correct phase in English, I mean constantly being on the offense).
I try to hear out and listen to most constructive criticism I get. No need to triumph your opinion over everyone, that most cerainly won't change mine. Only the constructive suggestions themselves have a chance for that.

I think the word you're looking for is "aggressive".

 

[Swarbs]

What does this even mean? What is the "Silk Road"? How can you be a "part of" the "Silk Road"? He traveled in Asia, nothing he did is verifiable since no other sources mention him, and he returned and wrote a book, which was popular. There were plenty of travel accounts, and his book wasn't even the most popular. Marco Polo became popularized in the 1970s, especially amongst Italian Americans, along with Columbus (hence Columbus Day).

How is this relevant to culture? Science is represented by science research, Marco Polo did nothing for that. Commercial aspects, is just trade between countries. If you want to have actual access to the "Silk Road", or rather Indian Ocean trade, let's have an Indian Ocean trade resource.

The Silk Road wasn't dependent on the Indian ocean, much of it went through Baghdad and Samarkand. Trade along the Silk Road between west and east begat commercial, scientific and cultural development through an exchange of ideas. But if you don't know what the Silk Road was this is probably a pointless decision.

Obviously there are errors in the SOI map, its a flat 2D map.... you are NEVER going to find a perfect projection. Have you seen the RFCE map around the edges? Nonetheless the position of mountains, resources, cities, terrain types, is far better allocated than in RFCE. Just compare the interiors of Anatolia, or the Bekaa Valley. RFCE did an amazing job for England and Scandinavia, but the Middle East hasn't been changed, and looks bad.

Errors in the placement of Jerusalem and Mount Lebanon aren't really to do with a projection though, as there are in the middle of the map and close to the equator. And the Beqaa Valley is a spectacularly bad example - Lebanon's most fertile farming region, known for producing wines for thousands of years, is represent in SOI by three grassland hills with no resources! Anatolia also has far too much semidesert in SOI. The Anatolian steppe is a temperate grassland biome, the desert depiction is largely a Western invention.

That said, it would be good to make some changes to Anatolian and the Middle East, and also to consider introducing the apple and citrus resource, possibly also dates. They were vital sources of health and nutrition throughout the Middle Ages, so it seems odd for them to be missing from a mod focused on this era. It would also give a trade option to address the health capping issues you run into before getting aqueducts.

 

[The Turk]

The Silk Road wasn't dependent on the Indian ocean, much of it went through Baghdad and Samarkand. Trade along the Silk Road between west and east begat commercial, scientific and cultural development through an exchange of ideas. But if you don't know what the Silk Road was this is probably a pointless decision.

The Silk Road is not a "thing", there is no object called "the Silk Road". Its a 19th century invention by the German explorer Baron Richthofen, who gave it a name. To locals, it was just one trade route, amongst many, that had been constantly shifting over generations. Your idea of what the Silk Road is, is a 19th century creation. There is no "physical" silk road, I hope you understand that. And Indian Ocean trade was far more extensive, lucrative and for the time period of this mod, it was the dominant source of trade networks. Go read "The Indian Ocean in World History" for starters.

Errors in the placement of Jerusalem and Mount Lebanon aren't really to do with a projection though, as there are in the middle of the map and close to the equator. And the Beqaa Valley is a spectacularly bad example - Lebanon's most fertile farming region, known for producing wines for thousands of years, is represent in SOI by three grassland hills with no resources! Anatolia also has far too much semidesert in SOI. The Anatolian steppe is a temperate grassland biome, the desert depiction is largely a Western invention.

You obviously haven't played SOI, since there is no desert in Anatolia, except in the far Eastern fringes (where it makes sense), and there are resources in Lebanon, in fact there is an entire Lebanon region, which always includes Sur and Tripoli. Beirut was not important until the 19th century, so for gameplay purposes Embryodead did a good job there. I suggest you play the game.

 

[Swarbs]

The Silk Road is not a "thing", there is no object called "the Silk Road". Its a 19th century invention by the German explorer Baron Richthofen, who gave it a name. To locals, it was just one trade route, amongst many, that had been constantly shifting over generations. Your idea of what the Silk Road is, is a 19th century creation. There is no "physical" silk road, I hope you understand that. And Indian Ocean trade was far more extensive, lucrative and for the time period of this mod, it was the dominant source of trade networks. Go read "The Indian Ocean in World History" for starters.

You do realise the Silk Road is an umbrella term which includes multiple trade routes across both land and sea trade, right? Through the Indian Ocean, South China Sea, Persia, Mongolia and other regions? Just because it was named "the Silk Road" doesn't mean it's an actual road. And just because it wasn't an actual road that doesn't mean we should abandon any efforts to represent it in game.

I'm beginning to realise why Absinthe ignores most of what you say.

You obviously haven't played SOI, since there is no desert in Anatolia, except in the far Eastern fringes (where it makes sense), and there are resources in Lebanon, in fact there is an entire Lebanon region, which always includes Sur and Tripoli. Beirut was not important until the 19th century, so for gameplay purposes Embryodead did a good job there. I suggest you play the game.

Obviously I haven't played it. Because obviously there's no ahistorical semidesert around Konya, Kayseri, Ancrya. Those were just figments of my imagination. And the Mount Lebanon mountain range isn't shown on the coast when it is actually 100 miles inland. Nor are there three grassland hills ahistrocially representing the Beqaa Valley.

Go on, show me where I'm wrong about any of that.

 

[El Bogus]

You obviously haven't played SOI, since there is no desert in Anatolia, except in the far Eastern fringes (where it makes sense), and there are resources in Lebanon, in fact there is an entire Lebanon region, which always includes Sur and Tripoli. Beirut was not important until the 19th century, so for gameplay purposes Embryodead did a good job there. I suggest you play the game.

I think you missunderstood Swarbs, here. Firstly, he was talking about semideserts and not deserts. Secondly, he wasn't talking about the whole Lebanon region but the Beqaa Valley.
Swarbs already wrote about the Silk Road what I wanted to say. I want to add that the Silk Road is not an invention by Richthofen, he just coined the term Seidenstraße.
Also, I suggest if you want to lecture people, why not do it in a friendly way? I don't know a single poster in here who doesn't want to know more about history.

 

[SanJose]

Semideserts in Anatolia[SoI] represent soil of dry steppes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-arid_climate

In addition, I want to note: the interpretation of the region on the map can be as the type of soil or the type of climate, or both types

 

[Swarbs]

Semideserts in Anatolia[SoI] represent soil of dry steppes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-arid_climate

But represent inaccurately (imo). Otherwise 50% of Spain (arguably some of the most fertile areas in Europe) would be represented by semi desert.

Ultimately steppe only becomes semi desert if it is not covered in vegetation, which hinders evapotranspiration. That isn't the case for Central Anatolia, where there are almost no parts not covered with some vegetation. In particular, the semi desert tiles next to the Kızılırmak and Yeşilırmak are very inaccurate considering the land watered and irrigated from those rivers.

 

[AbsintheRed]

That said, it would be good to make some changes to Anatolian and the Middle East, and also to consider introducing the apple and citrus resource, possibly also dates. They were vital sources of health and nutrition throughout the Middle Ages, so it seems odd for them to be missing from a mod focused on this era. It would also give a trade option to address the health capping issues you run into before getting aqueducts.

Actually the art for apples was updated a couple weeks ago with exactly that in mind
Citrus is also one of my long planned resources for the mod.
Both will be introduced in 1.6 (actually reintroduced in case of apples), along with the ever-increasing list of the various map updates.

Health is tricky though. It's already too easy for some civs, so we most certainly don't want to go overboard with health-giving resources.
I'm thinking about an era-based unhealth and unhappiness modifier. Even without the new resources, I often feel that for most civs health only limits the early period of the game.
In RI each new era adds a 1-2 additional penalties: "we have higher standards than our ancestors"
What's the general opinion about that?

 

[Swarbs]

Actually the art for apples was updated a couple weeks ago with exactly that in mind
Citrus is also one of my long planned resources for the mod.
Both will be introduced in 1.6 (actually reintroduced in case of apples), along with the ever-increasing list of the various map updates.

You're my hero!

Health is tricky though. It's already too easy for some civs, so we most certainly don't want to go overboard with health-giving resources.
I'm thinking about an era-based unhealth and unhappiness modifier. Even without the new resources, I often feel that for most civs health only limits the early period of the game.
In RI each new era adds a 1-2 additional penalties: "we have higher standards than our ancestors"
What's the general opinion about that?

I dunno - I haven't found many civs where you don't hit either unhappiness or unhealthiness caps at some point, even in the latter part of the game. It's only really easy for civs with land that has poor food, and those lands probably wouldn't get many extra resources anyway.

I like the addition of a happiness penalty for later eras - it stands to reason that people will expect their quality of life to improve as technology develops. And once you have Drama you can use the culture slider to address short term unhappiness spikes from era development.

However, as the player has no health slider, and given the stability impacts of health I think an arbitrary increase with technology could be very frustrating. Nothing is worse that a collapse that the player can't easily see coming, understand or prevent.

So I would favour a greater level of unhealthiness from late era buildings or resources. Coal could give +1 (possibly with a Blacksmith), Tannery and Drydock could give +2 etc. That also gives the player a choice - let the city grow as more resources are gained, or keep it smaller and use the surplus to build useful buildings.

 

[Swarbs]

Btw with all the Silk Road chat I think this might have been missed:

Tbh I don't think the Longbow was too close to the Arbalestier. It would take at least 100-200 years of game time to go from Plate Armour to both Chivalry and Replaceable Parts, probably longer as most players will only get RP when they need it for something else.

Personally, I think moving Longbows back means they will almost never be used now. Why would you bother spending 110 on a Longbow when you can get a stronger Arquebusier for around half the cost, and can get access to it much quicker. Both Gunpowder and Military Tradition require Guilds, but Military Tradition also requires Drama which is down another branch of the tech tree, and Longbows also require Replaceable Parts. I don't think anyone will ever build a longbow again if they require MT, as they will be obsolete almost before they are available.

If anything, I would argue that given the cost of Longbows (more than Musketmen and Pikes), they should have their tech cost reduced to make them viable. If they are going to be so expensive they should be available before the 1300s, particularly for the English. It's not like they are even particularly OP - Arbalests are as good against heavy infantry and Guisarmers as good against cavalry.

I can confirm that England is next to unplayable now the Welsh Longbows have been boosted. Strength 8, with 25% against archers, heavy infantry and heavy cav means nothing can stand up to them, or even defend cities against them. They just stroll around England roflstomping anything in their way, and healing from the promotions.

It's even more of a slap in the face that England's UU has been pushed back beyond the timescale of the Battle of Falkirk.

 

[El Bogus]

In my opinion, the game is in a good state health-wise with a tendency to make it a little too easy. It encourages building numerous smaller cities instead of fewer big cities.
With a possible introduction of new health ressources a nerf of already existing health buildings is imaginable, for example removing the health bonuses of the Granary and raising its food storage to 50 % while removing the food storage of the Smokehouse. (Though that would be not be very logical as I think about, so not a good idea.)
However, I could imagine era modifiers to feel punishing for the player as he progresses. Hidden modifiers would be even more frustrating since you can't see them so they would be inexplicable and harder to deal with.

EDIT: I just had a more viable idea: Granaries and Smoke Houses could give + instead of + for their ressources.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Btw with all the Silk Road chat I think this might have been missed:



I can confirm that England is next to unplayable now the Welsh Longbows have been boosted. Strength 8, with 25% against archers, heavy infantry and heavy cav means nothing can stand up to them, or even defend cities against them. They just stroll around England roflstomping anything in their way, and healing from the promotions.

It's even more of a slap in the face that England's UU has been pushed back beyond the timescale of the Battle of Falkirk.

Yeah, I did not forget about them.
I didn't have much time in the past week, and going on a trip till Sunday in a couple hours, but plan to do a minor commit before I leave.

While I think for 1.5 I will leave the Longbowman in it's current place, the English and Welsh versions will be available at an earlier tech.
Also, since the Welsh Longbowman is mainly a unique barb against England, thus not connected to techs in most cases, it's strength will be reduced to the original 6.
Finally the Arquebus strength goes to 8, still a significant increase from the original 7, and 9 does seem a little too much.
Does anyone see any unambigous further problems with this setup?

 

[AbsintheRed]

In my opinion, the game is in a good state health-wise with a tendency to make it a little too easy. It encourages building numerous smaller cities instead of fewer big cities.
With a possible introduction of new health ressources a nerf of already existing health buildings is imaginable, for example removing the health bonuses of the Granary and raising its food storage to 50 % while removing the food storage of the Smokehouse. (Though that would be not be very logical as I think about, so not a good idea.)
However, I could imagine era modifiers to feel punishing for the player as he progresses. Hidden modifiers would be even more frustrating since you can't see them so they would be inexplicable and harder to deal with.

EDIT: I just had a more viable idea: Granaries and Smoke Houses could give + instead of + for their ressources.

Yeah this needs some careful consideration.
Just one note for now: it's not hidden at all, shows up everywhere where the other unhappiness/unhealthiness modifiers are visible.

 

[Swarbs]

Yeah, I did not forget about them.
I didn't have much time in the past week, and going on a trip till Sunday in a couple hours, but plan to do a minor commit before I leave.

While I think for 1.5 I will leave the Longbowman in it's current place, the English and Welsh versions will be available at an earlier tech.
Also, since the Welsh Longbowman is mainly a unique barb against England, thus not connected to techs in most cases, it's strength will be reduced to the original 6.
Finally the Arquebus strength goes to 8, still a significant increase from the original 7, and 9 does seem a little too much.
Does anyone see any unambigous further problems with this setup?

That sounds good to me - I would make the English Longbow available with Guilds and Chivalry, so it comes available around 1250 as is historical. That would reflect how quickly England adopted it vs the rest of Europe.

Leaving the main longbow with MT should be fine, as it then acts as an alternative for civs which don't have sulphur at the time of gunpowder. Although I think the cost could be scaled back - as it stands it is only a bit more powerful than an arquebus, but almost twice as expensive.

 

[Force44]

About the whole geography/Marco Polo discussion.

I like it when something coincides with my perception. But honestly, when it doesn't, most of the time it doesn't bother me at all.
Being a dutch native my perspective is skewed anyway. Probably similar to the disproportion between the area of skin and the amount of sensory brain allocated.

About the new health resources

A priori I'm not too happy about the idea of general introduction of obstacles. Imo unhealthyness is an obstacle to overcome. Introduction of increasing demand of health feels similar to the gradual removal of a beginners bonus. If done at all, it should be done all at once, not gradually over time. Gradually over time feels like a lot of tiny, borderline unnecessary, obstacles. (small challenge, so small perceived reward)

But I'm happy to try it out and see if my perception will change.

About the new crusades

It is fun that there now is a reward tied to participation in a crusade.
I'm about to finish a game with Burgundy

(with the new companies they do receive the short end of the stick, their UU is outclassed by the Orderly units. Maybe their UA (unique ability) is in need of upgrading. Right now they play like a slightly smaller France on steroids. More distinctive might be more fun.)

After not being able to lead the first crusade I saw no benefit in trying to conquer Jerusalem, Arabia quickly became my favourite trading partner and my capital a faith factory (heroic epic + Knights Templar). Too bad the second UHV for Burgundy comes so late (Triumphal arc for even more faith and great general points).
With the additonal faith income it would be nice to be able to spend faith points (especially beyond 100) Also the amount of faith a Great Prophet yields seems a bit underwhelming at the moment.

But it is still a lot of fun to play with.

 

[gilgames]

I'm not happy either with the upcoming health changes...in my games, there is not a single turn when one of my cities isn't unhealthy. usually they become unhealthy at size 6/10+/15+/20+ over time. In my last english game, i had all resource possible in-game, and a size 20 Paris were unhealthy with bs,gh,t vs apo,aqua.
Imo if we want to modify health, then give the player some way to control its flow, like we do with money. I know they are barely similar entities, but still.
The new crusade answers seems better though still not motivating me to participate. No real reward, just punishment, unless you spend a fortune for nothing, 'coz orderds still leaves.
Uhv check problems appear at novgorod too, not only for morocco.
Kiev and Norway should have better relation by default imo. They are absolutely neutral toward each other, but they should be more freindlier.

 

[El Bogus]

I'm not happy either with the upcoming health changes...in my games, there is not a single turn when one of my cities isn't unhealthy. usually they become unhealthy at size 6/10+/15+/20+ over time. In my last english game, i had all resource possible in-game, and a size 20 Paris were unhealthy with bs,gh,t vs apo,aqua. Imo if we want to modify health, then give the player some way to control its flow, like we do with money. I know they are barely similar entities, but still.

I actually think, that this is a good thing as all medieval cities became unhealthy at a certain point. They became big only when medicine got drastically better in the 19th/20th century. Medieval cities were in fact disease factories. So as unrealistic as a city with more than one million inhabitants is in the middle ages, it's even more unrealistic that said city would be totally health and clean.

The new crusade answers seems better though still not motivating me to participate. No real reward, just punishment, unless you spend a fortune for nothing, 'coz orderds still leaves.

Then don't participate. I don't see a problem with that. There are plenty reasons to participate though apart from the new awards (faith points etc.).

Kiev and Norway should have better relation by default imo. They are absolutely neutral toward each other, but they should be more freindlier.

Why would they be? Are there historic connections between the two peoples apart from the Kievan Rus being from Scandinavia originally? (I'm asking out of genuine interest not to spite you.)