Development thread for 1.5

[Swarbs]

Thanks for the longbow changes, but English longbows still require MT with the last commit, making them too late for the 1st UHV. Also weren't the English longbows previously a bit cheaper than the standard ones?

 

[DC123456789]

The Moroccan UU feels really useless - it come so late that you could easily have finished all your UHV goals before then.

 

[AbsintheRed]

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.

Didn't have time to adjust the tech requirements too, but that was my line of thought as well. Not yet certain about the exact techs, but the mid 13th century sounds good.

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.

Once again, we are in agreement. Actually already did that in the commit

 

[AbsintheRed]

Thanks for the longbow changes, but English longbows still require MT with the last commit, making them too late for the 1st UHV. Also weren't the English longbows previously a bit cheaper than the standard ones?

Oh, should have checked all the posts before I answer.
Tech requirements will be updated, I was just really short on time. Already ran (literally) to catch my train
English Longbows were cheaper, but when they will come that much earlier than generic ones I'm not really sure if it's necessary

The Moroccan UU feels really useless - it come so late that you could easily have finished all your UHV goals before then.

Yeah, you are probably right. Any suggestions for a more fitting one?

 

[AbsintheRed]

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.

Thanks for the feedback!
Keep in mind, that a limit for company UUs will come. Not yet sure about the exact form of it, but it will certainly improve Paladins' status once again.
The faith point system could also use some updates, I agree.
As a temporary solution spending faith points might be a good idea.

 

[AbsintheRed]

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.

Yeah, I agree with this. Unhealthiness was a very significant problem in the middle ages.
@gilgames: The goal is to have most bigger cities struggling with it. A 20 sized city should be very-very unhealthy.
Btw, you meant Kiev and Novgorod?

 

[DC123456789]

Yeah, you are probably right. Any suggestions for a more fitting one?

This really isn't my forte, but maybe some sort of Berber Horsemen/Cavalry replacing the Lancer or Horse Archer?

 

[The Turk]

This really isn't my forte, but maybe some sort of Berber Horsemen/Cavalry replacing the Lancer or Horse Archer?

Since the Idrisids and later Moroccan Emirates/Sultanates were reliant on Berber tribal power, I would recommend just copying the Fatimid UU from SOI, which is Berber Cavalry. Unfortunately however, I was also going to suggest adding an Egyptian Civilization, which would begin with the Fatimids in 909/969 (Conquest of Africa / Conquest of Egypt), whose logical UU would be Berber Cavalry to represent the Kutama Berbers. However I guess it could also be Mamluke cavalry, to represent the slave soldiers of the Ayyubids and of course the Mameluke dynasties post-1250.

On that note, there should be something to represent the ajnad (sing. jund), the Arab tribal armies that were critical to the success of the Rashidun, Umayyad and early Abbasids (up to Caliph al-Ma'mun). Ghazi comes off as being too generic, and the real power of the early Caliphate armies was their lightening mobility, due to their ability to forgo long supply chains (due to the use of local markets and coinage). The "Arabs" civilization should ONLY represent the Rashidun, Umayyads and Abbasids. Just like North Africa has its own civilizations, so should Egypt, at least beginning with the Fatimids.

Along with the updated map for the Middle East, which as I stated is sorely needed, the resources could be slightly reconfigured to give space for a Fatimid (Egyptian) and Abbasid (Arab) civilization. If possible this would include an expansion of the map southwards, to include more of Egypt, with the possibility of adding at least Medina to Arabia. Since the vast majority of this expansion would only be desert (Sahara), it wouldn't be as hard as expanding the map in other directions.

EDIT: Also as I stated earlier, Qayrawan really needs to be added. It was the most important city in North Africa, West of Fustat/Cairo.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Most of these suggestions align with my plans, yes
New civs won't come before 1.7 though.

Btw, according to my development plan (which I put together after 1.4 was released, so it's nort set into stone, but a good guideline), 4 new civs will be added for 1.7. While it's way too early to talk about them in detail, can anyone guess all of them?

 

[The Turk]

Most of these suggestions align with my plans, yes
New civs won't come before 1.7 though.

Even expanding the map? I thought that was going to require some extra convincing. But I really don't think it should be that difficult given the Sahara and Arabian Deserts.

Needless to say, I'm looking forward to further improvement!

 

[AbsintheRed]

No, the map size won't change.
Those few additional tiles for Egypt won't worth the huge effort.

 

[Swarbs]

Along with the updated map for the Middle East, which as I stated is sorely needed, the resources could be slightly reconfigured to give space for a Fatimid (Egyptian) and Abbasid (Arab) civilization. If possible this would include an expansion of the map southwards, to include more of Egypt, with the possibility of adding at least Medina to Arabia. Since the vast majority of this expansion would only be desert (Sahara), it wouldn't be as hard as expanding the map in other directions.

That's quite ahistorical though - by the time the Fatamids controlled Egypt the Abbasids had collapsed back to Iraq so they shouldn't coexist in the Levant like that.

I've often thought the Arab goals are quite uninspiring and ahistoric themselves - UHV1 is ridiculously easy, and UHV2 takes place after the effective end of the Abbasids as a viable civ.

So perhaps give the Arabs an expanded UHV1 where they start with a stronger army (access to Ghazis as well) and have to capture the Levant, Egypt and Northern Africa by 969AD. Then the Fatamids spawn and flip Egypt, and they have to conquer the same territories by 1250AD. That would be more historic, and better for gameplay imo, than trying to fit two civs into the same small space with limited expansion opportunities.

Other UHVs for the Abbasids could include being tech leader by 969AD and capturing Constantinople (the one they historically didn't achieve). Although that would make for a very short Abbasid game, so maybe give the human player the option to continue past the Fatamid start date. Then they could keep the current 35% Islamic religion goal.

For the Fatamids, building the Tomb of al-Walid and maybe other Muslim wonders (Cairo Citadel), and perhaps kill a certain number of crusader units. That would encourage the Fatamid player to keep defeating crusades to trigger more. Or maybe, for a longer game, destroy the Ottoman Empire?

 

[Swarbs]

Most of these suggestions align with my plans, yes
New civs won't come before 1.7 though.

Btw, according to my development plan (which I put together after 1.4 was released, so it's nort set into stone, but a good guideline), 4 new civs will be added for 1.7. While it's way too early to talk about them in detail, can anyone guess all of them?

Fatamids / Egyptians, Crimean Khanate, Duchy of Sicily / Naples, Sultanate of Rum?

 

[El Bogus]

Btw, according to my development plan (which I put together after 1.4 was released, so it's nort set into stone, but a good guideline), 4 new civs will be added for 1.7. While it's way too early to talk about them in detail, can anyone guess all of them?

Exciting! I'm guessing Golden Horde, Norman Kingdom of Sicily, Kingdom of Jerusalem and some civ in eastern Europe I know nothing about.
And now my silly guesses: Playable Rome, Wends, Republic of Pisa (because we need another civ in northern Italy!) and of course Republic of Ragusa.

 

[SanJose]

Most of these suggestions align with my plans, yes
New civs won't come before 1.7 though.
Btw, according to my development plan (which I put together after 1.4 was released, so it's nort set into stone, but a good guideline), 4 new civs will be added for 1.7. While it's way too early to talk about them in detail, can anyone guess all of them?

1 in Tunis (Fatimids, Almohads, Hafsids or Barbary Coast)
1 in The Crimean Peninsula (Crimean Khanate)
1 in Middle East or Egypt (Sultanate of Rume/Mamluks/Crusader state)
1 somewhere in Europe (Czechs/Serbs/Principalities of Bessarabia/Switz)

 

[gilgames]

1, Creimea
2, Egypt
3, Rum
4, Serbia or Tunis

+1 pls delete scotland

ps: if you really add Rum, then dont make it harder then the 1070ad onslaught is

 

[The Turk]

That's quite ahistorical though - by the time the Fatamids controlled Egypt the Abbasids had collapsed back to Iraq so they shouldn't coexist in the Levant like that.

Who do you think the Fatimids conquered Egypt from? The Tulunids were dethroned by the Abbasid revival under Caliph al-Muntasir. The Ikhshidid's who replaced them, were staunch vassals of the Abbasids. There was no time under the Abbasid Caliphate that they ruled Egypt direct. In fact no Abbasid Caliph even ever visited Egypt. So unless we create a whole new civilization, just for the Ikhshidid governors (ie. not going to happen), then they need to be represented by the Abbasids.

I've often thought the Arab goals are quite uninspiring and ahistoric themselves - UHV1 is ridiculously easy, and UHV2 takes place after the effective end of the Abbasids as a viable civ.

IMO I would get rid of the Arab civilization, make them unplayable, and let them expand quickly, and then collapse back to the Levant. But I can't imagine that would be too popular. I just don't see a good way of representing them otherwise.

Then the Fatamids spawn and flip Egypt

Unlike SOI, RFC Europe actually depicts all of Europe. It would be stupid to have the Fatimids flip Egypt. They should start in Ifriqiya (in Qayrawan --> al-Mahadiyya specifically), and then have to conquer Egypt. They tried 4 times to conquer Egypt, and it was only on their 4th time in 969 that they succeeded. It should not be a given at all. Invading Egypt from the West is very difficult, just ask Rommel.

As for UHVs: ---> This would be relevant not only for the Fatimids, but also for the short lived Ayyubids and the Mamelukes.

1) Hold North Africa (up to Morocco), Egypt and the Levant by X date.

2) Have the highest trade income in the game by X date. OR Highest population OR Highest Income, something to represent the immense wealth of these states.

3) Ensure no Crusaders/Europeans in North Africa, Egypt or Levant by X date.

Oh... and +1 for delete Scotland. Make them unplayable or something if anything.

 

[The Turk]

No, the map size won't change.
Those few additional tiles for Egypt won't worth the huge effort.

Well I hope we can at least get an Indian Ocean Sea access in the Red Sea, that can be fought over by the Egyptians, Arabs and Crusaders (and later Ottomans!). Having a bit more depth in that region would be nice.

 

[El Bogus]

Just finished a game as Burgundy which was fun (Revision 1255). There was a little bug with Germany which was chosen to lead the crusade (over me ). The same turn they collapsed but the turn after they declared war on Arabia. They never got units, though, I guess because they didn't respawn.
Anyway, here is the safe if @AbsintheRed is interested. (Btw, is this the right thread for this because I remember this thread should not be revived?)

 

[DC123456789]

Hmm.... Crimea, Tunisia probably for sure. Maybe Sicily and Rum to round out the 4? I sure hope Rum is one of them.