Development thread for 1.5

[Force44]

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?

No way I am able to guess all four of them. If I guess three out of four correctly I would be pretty pleased with myself.
After looking at the answers given sofar my guess would be:

1 Crimean Khanate
2 Egypt
3 Kingdom of Naples and Sicily
4 A Berber civilization in North Africa

 

[Swarbs]

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.

As AI they play an important role in flipping the Levant and Egypt away from Byzantium, who would be massively OP without this. And they can be made good for a human player, if rebalanced to allow the early and rapid expansion across the Magreb and also to allow the pursuit of better goals in the long term, like tech, culture, or capturing Constantinople. Also if you do have Egypt flip away from them, then you can challenge the human player to recover from this, whilst the AI will naturally collapse as Egypt arises with better units anyway.

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.

Not sure how that's any less stupid than all the other flips which occur. You could just as easily argue against the flips for Cordoba, Morocco, England, Muscovy, Teutonic Order etc. SOI is no better - why do the Ayyubids flip Egypt and Syria instead of spawning in Iraq and fighting their way to these provinces. But if you do that the game is no longer Rhye's and Fall, it just becomes standard Civ IV conquest.

Also remember that the flips are there as much to make the AI strong and prevent the player just killing them on spawn, or them just stagnating due to the AI. If the Fatamids spawn in Ifriqiya then it will be far to easy to bottle them up and kill them, and the AI will never take Egypt.

For the UHVs, I would say they apply to the Egyptians as an umbrella term for the Fatamids, Ayyubids and Mamluks. With a focus on Europe, and fewer turns per year than SOI, it won't be feasible or good for gameplay to split them up further. Same way the Arabs in game are an umbrella term for the Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates. Just have the name change over time, or dynamically.

Although the Crusader focused UHV seems too boring and easy, but also potentially frustrating and unpredictable. On the one hand - it's not like an Egyptian player will ever let Crusaders stay alive in the Levant, and it is easy to kill them if you are prepared. You are also 90% likely to meet this UHV automatically by controlling Africa, the Levant and Egypt so it's largely a repeated UHV from the 1st. On the other hand, what if the Pope calls a crusade right before the UHV date, all the units spawn on that date and you fail with nothing you can do.

Much better a UHV which focuses on the Ottomans imo, basically challenging you to make a true Caliphate of your own.

 

[The Turk]

As AI they play an important role in flipping the Levant and Egypt away from Byzantium, who would be massively OP without this. And they can be made good for a human player, if rebalanced to allow the early and rapid expansion across the Magreb and also to allow the pursuit of better goals in the long term, like tech, culture, or capturing Constantinople. Also if you do have Egypt flip away from them, then you can challenge the human player to recover from this, whilst the AI will naturally collapse as Egypt arises with better units anyway.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Why would the Fatimids have better soldiers than the Arab Abbasid armies? Anyway, since I doubt they will be made unplayable, the Arabs do need to be rebalanced and changed accordingly; especially if there is going to be an Egyptian civilization.

SOI is no better - why do the Ayyubids flip Egypt and Syria instead of spawning in Iraq and fighting their way to these provinces. But if you do that the game is no longer Rhye's and Fall, it just becomes standard Civ IV conquest.

You have a very bad tendency of saying things out of complete ignorance of the facts. I've had to refute your claims on multiple occasions now.
The Ayyubids spawn with Egypt and Syria, because by 1171, Salah ad-Din was already effectively the governor of Egypt. When he first came to Egypt with his Uncle Shirkuh, he was a nobody. When his uncle died, he filled his position, and continued to do with bidding of the Zengid Amirs of al-Jazira/Syria. It is only in 1171 that the last Fatimid Caliph dies, and Salah ad-Din defeats his Vizier, that Salah ad-Din is able to proclaim a new dynasty in Egypt AND in Syria, because of his family connections to the region. However his rule was constantly in doubt; he was simply an usurper, with little legitimacy.

So why have the Fatimids conquer North Africa? Because that is part of their miraculous rise to power. I highly recommend you start by reading the story of al-Mahdi and his missionary Abdul Shi'i. Needless to say, the story begins in 909, with the conquest of the Aghlabids and Rustamids (and raids into Morocco). It would allow the player more time to expand, and have the fun of conquering Egypt. If the AI/Player cannot conquer Egypt, then then Caliphate can stay in Ifriqiya + Sicily. But suffice it to say, the Fatimid Caliphate begins in 909, when al-Mahdi proclaims himself Caliph. So in 909, the Fatimids would spawn of Algeria, Tunisia and Libya (+Sicily ---> ONLY if there is a Muslim emirate present there). I don't see any chance for "bottling up".

For the UHVs, I would say they apply to the Egyptians as an umbrella term for the Fatamids, Ayyubids and Mamluks. With a focus on Europe, and fewer turns per year than SOI, it won't be feasible or good for gameplay to split them up further. Same way the Arabs in game are an umbrella term for the Rashidun, Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates. Just have the name change over time, or dynamically.

I never said they should be "split up", but logically, because we have naming conventions we can represent different dynasties, such as the Fatimids, Ayyubids and Mamelukes. It does not need to be the Fatimids from 909-1700. Hence my UHV suggestions are generalized and logical for all of them:

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. ---> I forgot to add earlier, no Barbarians (ie. Turks, Mongols, or Ottomans).

basically challenging you to make a true Caliphate of your own.

What? I don't even know what this means. The Fatimids were Caliphs, through their descent to Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet, and the wife of Ali ibn Abi Talib (the 4th Rashidun Caliph). Salah ad-Din cannot be a Caliph because he is a 'low' born Kurd (Iranian), not an Arab. And the Mamelukes were a series of slave soldier dynasties that rotated power to different Mameluke households. At one point you had a Sultan called al-Mughli (the Mongol -- he had his origins in Central Asia). Anyway, by the time the Ottomans conquer Egypt in 1517 the title of Caliph was trivial, and was not picked up as a serious title until the very late 19th century (under Abdul Hamid II). After 1258, Khadim al-Haramain was a more important title (Protector of the Holy Places).

 

[Swarbs]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Why would the Fatimids have better soldiers than the Arab Abbasid armies? Anyway, since I doubt they will be made unplayable, the Arabs do need to be rebalanced and changed accordingly; especially if there is going to be an Egyptian civilization.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Well done.

You have a very bad tendency of saying things out of complete ignorance of the facts. I've had to refute your claims on multiple occasions now.

And you have a very bad tendency of ignoring what people say and being aggressive and arrogant. As I've said before, it's probably why no one takes most of your suggestions seriously.

3) Ensure no Crusaders/Europeans in North Africa, Egypt or Levant by X date. ---> I forgot to add earlier, no Barbarians (ie. Turks, Mongols, or Ottomans).

Still a very boring and unpredictable goal. No way a competent Egyptian player allows anyone to conquer part of the region they have already controlled through the 1st UHV. Also if a barbarian unit spawns in the desert the turn before the UHV and can't be reached, you fail.

What? I don't even know what this means.

You don't know what a true Caliphate is? Or how the last Abbasid Caliph at Cairo surrendered the Caliphate to Selim I after the Ottoman conquest of Cairo? You should read some book that I've read, only then can you ever pretend to be as superior as me.

 

[The Turk]

it's probably why no one takes most of your suggestions seriously.

Looking at the Git changes for RFC Europe, I'd say plenty of my suggestions get through
I've been here for a long time.

Still a very boring and unpredictable goal. No way a competent Egyptian player allows anyone to conquer part of the region they have already controlled through the 1st UHV. Also if a barbarian unit spawns in the desert the turn before the UHV and can't be reached, you fail.

So.... you don't spawn them in the desert, and you don't spawn them right at the end of the UHV deadline. And you increase the pressure of Barbarians to SOI Mongol invasion levels. Also this would include what is now Eastern Anatolia (Cilicia + Malatya ---> the Thuggur (sp?)).

You don't know what a true Caliphate is? Or how the last Abbasid Caliph at Cairo surrendered the Caliphate to Selim I after the Ottoman conquest of Cairo? You should read some book that I've read, only then can you ever pretend to be as superior as me.

Oh... sigh. It is okay to be wrong... but you are constantly spewing nonsense, about SOI, about the Fatimids, about Lebanon, nothing you have said has been factually correct. Do you ever check what you write, before writing it? Or you don't have any sources to begin with?

The problem is that for most of their history the Ottomans didn't actually count themselves as caliphs in the manner of the Abbasids. The idea of the Ottomans having been granted the Caliphate starting with Selim I was invented in the eighteenth century (See Caroline Finkel, Osman's Dream, 111).
That narrative was created later and projected back onto the past. Case closed.

 

[Swarbs]

So.... you don't spawn them in the desert, and you don't spawn them right at the end of the UHV deadline. And you increase the pressure of Barbarians to SOI Mongol invasion levels. Also this would include what is now Eastern Anatolia (Cilicia + Malatya ---> the Thuggur (sp?)).

Still boring as anything. Fighting barbarians should be something that you do alongside your UHV, it's a pretty poor Unique Historical Victory to say they are the only civ to fight the barbarians.

The problem is that for most of their history the Ottomans didn't actually count themselves as caliphs in the manner of the Abbasids. The idea of the Ottomans having been granted the Caliphate starting with Selim I was invented in the eighteenth century (See Caroline Finkel, Osman's Dream, 111).
That narrative was created later and projected back onto the past.

It was projected back onto the past to justify Selim and many other Ottoman leaders calling themselves the Caliph when it suited. The Caliphate was never granted, it was taken. They were able to that title because, after defeating the Mamluks, they were the only remaining large scale Islamic power with the ability to claim to speak for all Islam. In fact there is documentary evidence of Selim signing letters as the Great Caliph (Halife-i Uzma). There's even contemporary sources citing Mural II using the title of Caliph.

Try reading Islam and the Politics of Secularism by Nurullah Ardic, specifically Chapter 3 "The Caliphate Question". It effectively refutes the arguments of Finkel and other Western authors quoted in Wikipedia like Barthold and Arnold. Ok, I may have baited you into using that one

Historical debate aside, a UHV which sees the Egyptians conquer the Ottomans is far more interesting, challenging and aspirational than one which sees them hide in their castles and wait for the barbarian spawn to end.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

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. Ireland
2. Bavaria
3. Sicily
4. Mamelukes?

Also, are you still planning on eventually switching over to a bigger map?

 

[The Turk]

Still boring as anything. Fighting barbarians should be something that you do alongside your UHV, it's a pretty poor Unique Historical Victory to say they are the only civ to fight the barbarians.

I don't think it is, if we greatly strengthen the Mongols, as they should be, it makes complete sense. The whole reason the Mamelukes come to power originally, is because they defeat the Mongols at Ain Jalut. That is their claim to legitimacy. Evicting Mongols and Turks from the Middle East, and reclaiming all of al-Jazira (which includes Eastern Anatolia in this mod), makes complete sense.

In an effort to make some of the UHVs "difficult", some of them are completely nonsensical. Why would the Venetians want to build a colonial company stretching out to the Atlantic? Their whole basis of trade was rooted in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean through Egypt, where they had close contacts. No need to go to the nonsensical to find UHVs, like having the Mamluks conquer Anatolia.... why? It wouldn't even be a border province for them. Cilicia and Eastern Anatolia is what they would go after. Cilicia in the 15th century, controlled by a Beylik was a protectorate of the Mamluks before the Ottomans conquered them.

It was projected back onto the past to justify Selim and many other Ottoman leaders calling themselves the Caliph when it suited.

The story is made up. You wrote: "the last Abbasid Caliph at Cairo surrendered the Caliphate to Selim I after the Ottoman conquest of Cairo?" This is BS. This is a made up story, all Ottoman historians agree on this.

The Caliphate was never granted, it was taken.

You don't say....

They were able to that title because, after defeating the Mamluks, they were the only remaining large scale Islamic power

This again is BS, because everyone and anyone claimed the title of Caliph. As the Ottomans grew much more powerful in the 16th centuries onwards, other states claiming the title "Caliph" was a political provocation. But everyone before then claimed the title Caliph, and even in the 18th century you find the Sokoto Caliphate in West Africa, clearly ignoring the Ottomans, without problem.

In fact there is documentary evidence of Selim signing letters as the Great Caliph (Halife-i Uzma). There's even contemporary sources citing Mural II using the title of Caliph.

Yes, every Muslim leader claimed the title of Caliph. Everyone who was a Muslim claimed the title Caliph, because it had lost its meaning and any legitimacy attached to it. This is why when it did matter for the Ottomans in the 18th century (to use against the Russians), they had to invent a story of handover of the title of Caliph. They had to legitimize the title for themselves.

Try reading Islam and the Politics of Secularism by Nurullah Ardic, specifically Chapter 3 "The Caliphate Question". It effectively refutes the arguments of Finkel and other Western authors quoted in Wikipedia like Barthold and Arnold.

Initially I had no idea who Nurullah Ardic was, so I looked him up, and I still found nothing of importance about him. And that explained everything I need to know about him: he is a nobody.

So you quoting a nobody, and saying he is more important than the person who wrote the best book, that all academics agree is the best book (in terms of general histories), on Ottoman history (Osman's Dream), is like saying: "My science teacher knows more than Stephen Hawking about astronomy, because he wrote a book nobody read a long time ago about it".

Also grouping all "Western" historian academics and saying they are bunk, just because they are Western, pretty much sums up your credibility on any matter historically. And by the way, credible Turkish historians of importance, such as Colin Imber or Halil Inalcik will agree with Finkel's book Osman's Dream.

 

[gilgames]

Arent you bored to fight on smthng that isnt even actual only a possibility. Also does not seems constructive so absinthe will ignore it. go private with it.

 

[Swarbs]

I don't think it is, if we greatly strengthen the Mongols, as they should be, it makes complete sense. The whole reason the Mamelukes come to power originally, is because they defeat the Mongols at Ain Jalut. That is their claim to legitimacy. Evicting Mongols and Turks from the Middle East, and reclaiming all of al-Jazira (which includes Eastern Anatolia in this mod), makes complete sense.

Still boring as anything. Fighting barbarians in regions you already control is just a case of building castles and SODs and waiting around, not really any strategy involved.

Also it's already represented in the 1st UHV if that is to control all North Africa, Egypt and the Levant. Once you have achieved that goal, no competent player who knows full well that the Mongols are coming will fail to defend against them.

In an effort to make some of the UHVs "difficult", some of them are completely nonsensical. Why would the Venetians want to build a colonial company stretching out to the Atlantic? Their whole basis of trade was rooted in the Mediterranean and Indian Ocean through Egypt, where they had close contacts. No need to go to the nonsensical to find UHVs, like having the Mamluks conquer Anatolia.... why? It wouldn't even be a border province for them. Cilicia and Eastern Anatolia is what they would go after. Cilicia in the 15th century, controlled by a Beylik was a protectorate of the Mamluks before the Ottomans conquered them.

Oh I've long agreed that Venice's colonial goal is more than a bit silly.

But the Mamluks had a long history of attempting to gain control of the Anatolian beyliks, and present themselves as having authority over Islam. Stands to reason that if they hadn't fallen into crisis in the 15th century they would have attempted to contest control of the Islamic world with the Ottomans. Just needs a bit of imagination rather than reading Wikipedia. After all, the point of RFC is to recreate history in your own image, not be a slave to what actually happened.

Also, given how limited their area of the map is any interesting UHV that doesn't involve camping in the Levant would require them to expand

The story is made up. You wrote: "the last Abbasid Caliph at Cairo surrendered the Caliphate to Selim I after the Ottoman conquest of Cairo?" This is BS. This is a made up story, all Ottoman historians agree on this.

Yes I know it is. I was baiting you with this one, apologies. I figured you wouldn't be able to resist responding with your usual self aggrandising arrogance, and I was right

Not sure if you're a native speaker or not so you might not have picked up on the sarcasm

This again is BS, because everyone and anyone claimed the title of Caliph. As the Ottomans grew much more powerful in the 16th centuries onwards, other states claiming the title "Caliph" was a political provocation. But everyone before then claimed the title Caliph, and even in the 18th century you find the Sokoto Caliphate in West Africa, clearly ignoring the Ottomans, without problem.

Exactly. Everyone wanted to claim the title of Caliph, but also have others recognise this. And the only way the Mamluks could gain full recognition from their control of the Abbasid Caliph would be to defeat the Ottomans as the other main claimant.

They don't need to conquer Anatolia, just collapse or vassalise the Ottomans. That would add a bit more interest to the situation in Egypt, as it would allow for a bit of intrigue by conquering, weakening, using spies etc.

Initially I had no idea who Nurullah Ardic was, so I looked him up, and I still found nothing of importance about him. And that explained everything I need to know about him: he is a nobody.

Absolutely. A nobody who is Professor of Abrahamic Religions, Foreign Policy, Politics and History at Istanbul Sehir University. With a PhD from the University of California. Clearly someone who knows nothing about Islam, history or the Ottomans, compared to you with your vastly superior knowledge of Wikipedia and one 12 year old book.

Tbh I'm not going to bother any more. It was interesting debating with you at first, but now you've shown yourself to be more concerned with trying to make other people look stupid than actually recognising the truth and acknowledging facts. You're also derailing the threat with your continual negging and trolling so I'm going to stop feeding you.

 

[Swarbs]

Arent you bored to fight on smthng that isnt even actual only a possibility. Also does not seems constructive so absinthe will ignore it. go private with it.

Yeah, sorry. I thought at first he was actually interested in historical debate, but in his arrogance it seems he only wants to argue and fight and try and prove himself right. So I will step back from attempting to debate anything with him, it is pointless and only distracting for the rest of you.

 

[The Turk]

Still boring as anything. Fighting barbarians in regions you already control is just a case of building castles and SODs and waiting around, not really any strategy involved.

I disagree. The goal of holding onto territory in the face of overwhelming opposition sounds fun to me.

But the Mamluks had a long history of attempting to gain control of the Anatolian beyliks

Source? They controlled Cilicia, much like the Ayyubids, Fatimids, Tulunids (briefly), all Egyptian dynasties wanted to control Cilicia. This is nothing to do with them being a Turkish Beylik, it is for economic reasons.

Stands to reason that if they hadn't fallen into crisis in the 15th century they would have attempted to contest control of the Islamic world with the Ottomans.

What? What stands to reason? You haven't provided any reasoning for this? There is a logical gap here. The Ottomans were on the collision course with the Mamluks, because of the latter's control of Cilicia, and alliance with the Venetians and Safavids against the Ottomans. No need for the Mamluks to contest anything.

Just needs a bit of imagination rather than reading Wikipedia. After all, the point of RFC is to recreate history in your own image, not be a slave to what actually happened.

None of my sources are from wikipedia, but it seems that all of yours are, since you haven't said one factual thing yet. And you don't need to be a slave to UHVs, but they are called: "Unique Historical Victories". If you want to try to complete them, you can, if you don't want to, you don't have to. You can go conquer England if you want.

Yes I know it is. I was baiting you with this one

Because you are a BS artist, this is why none of your claims are accurate or serious.

Exactly. Everyone wanted to claim the title of Caliph, but also have others recognise this.

This is BS once again.... the coveted title that had real prestige in the 16th century was: Khadim al-Haramein, the person who guarded the Holy Cities, and organized the yearly pilgrimage. No one could care less about the title of the Caliphate.

And the only way the Mamluks could gain full recognition from their control of the Abbasid Caliph would be to defeat the Ottomans as the other main claimant.

Complete BS, why would they ally with Shah Isma'il who claimed to be the Mahdi, if they were were worried about their "claim". Their claim was the Abbasid "Shadow" Caliph in Cairo. They couldn't care less what Selim or Mehmet styled themselves as, so long as they didn't call themselves Khadim al-Haramein (which they couldn't, since they didn't control the Holy Cities). Again, everyone called themselves Caliph.

Absolutely. A nobody who is Professor of Abrahamic Religions, Foreign Policy, Politics and History at Istanbul Sehir University.

He is a nobody, who is not even a historian, and you have just mentioned his name, you haven't cited an actual source. I can make up some random name now, and say he/she validates all my point, but I don't spew BS like you do.

Tbh I'm not going to bother any more..

Of course your not going to bother with me anymore, because you have no proof of any of the BS you repeat, and you've run out of BS now. You have been wrong about literally everything. There has not been one issue which you have said which is not simple factual BS. I gave evidence from Finkel's book (acclaimed by all historians as being the best) and you mention an unknown non-historian, without citing anything. But, as I said above, this is because you are a BS artist. Congrats.

 

[The Turk]

So I will step back from attempting to debate anything with him.

Of course you will step back, you have no evidence of anything. You can't debate without evdience. That just makes you a BS artist, which you have already admitted that you are. How could you even continue to "debate" even if you wanted to?

Just leave the history, to those who use proper academic sources.

 

[El Bogus]

Can we please turn back to discussions about this mod and leave the insults aside?

 

[The Turk]

All of this goes back to how to implement the Fatimids (as part of an Egyptian state). And it should be noted that there would be no Ayyubids, or Mamluks without there being the Fatimids first of all. Otherwise the Ikhshidid governors of Egypt (for the Abbasids) would have remained in power.

Hence it will make it interesting for the Fatimids to spawn in modern day Tunisia (Ifriqiya), and have the player try to conquer Egypt. The Fatimids failed to conquer Egypt some ~3 times, because of the rejuvenated Abbasid Empire in the early 900s.

 

[Rob (R8XFT)]

Moderator Action: I'm disappointed to see the insults in this thread. Please get back to discussing the mod instead of making comments about each other.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[The Turk]

4 A Berber civilization in North Africa

Define "Berber" civilization? Because the major dynasties of North Africa were all founded by foreign Turkish soldiers, "Arab" missionaries/nobility etc. Idrisids, Rustamids, Aghlabids, Fatimids, Almoravids, were all founded by non-Berbers, but who relied on Berber tribal power.

The only Berber founded major dynasty that I can think of is the Almohads... but they are already represented by Morocco. And the Hafsids are represented by the respawn in Tunisia. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any, can you?

But honestly, any state West of Egypt/South of Iberia had to rely on various Berber clans for their military needs (such as the Kutama for the Fatimids), so maybe that is what you meant.

 

[Force44]

Could you specify your question? I don't want to get into a debate with you where neither of us is able to explain oneself to the other.

The post you are quoting is part of a guessing game. Some guesses are very precise and some are more vague. This one is more vague. I could have said Tunesia (There is a big empty space on the map right now over there) but they are already present as a Cordoban respawn.

Also I'd really like it if something more ingenious than the current Moroccan bonus with deserts was attempted. (don't get me wrong, I think it is a nice bonus, there are nicer bonuses around though.) But as Absinthered already said, it is way too early to discuss those civilizations right now.

 

[Swarbs]

Also I'd really like it if something more ingenious than the current Moroccan bonus with deserts was attempted. (don't get me wrong, I think it is a nice bonus, there are nicer bonuses around though.) But as Absinthered already said, it is way too early to discuss those civilizations right now.

I agree with this - personally I think the Moroccans should get a bonus related to the Berbers. Maybe an ability to assimilate defeated Berber units into their armies, so when they kill a barb unit there is a chance to recruit it.

That would help them in defending North Africa against barbarian incursions whilst also gaining enough units to invade Iberia, which is often a bit hit and miss depending on the balance of power in Iberia at the time.

 

[El Bogus]

Marco Polo is very underwhelming right now. In comparison: Mezquita gives a free Merchant and the gold bonus, 8 : 450 .
Leonardo's Inventions: free Artist, free Engineer, +50% (!), 6 : 500 .
Cluny Abbey: free Priest, the science bonus, 8 : 550 .
Genoan Bank: free Merchant, +50% : 200 .
Konets: free Merchant, free Engineer: 150 .
I could go on, but:
Marco Polo: free Merchant, 4 : 400 . That's not worth building.

That said, I think that the later wonders should be vastly more expensive (i.e. more ) than they are right now.