Development thread for 1.5

lol

 

No, I'm using the SVN version, which I guess is the latest version. What cities should be built first? I'm just finding it hard to reach places in time given the lack of roads.

I think as was shown above, the fact is that the Franks need another boost. Given that they should be one of the most powerful forces on the continent, they sure don't do very well. Stability is another issue as well. Perhaps boosting manor stability would help.

 

Actually the Crusades and their destinations were not as clear as you might think. A couple of the Crusades landed in Egypt (IIRC at least one of the 5th or 6th near Damietta, maybe the 7th also in Egypt), wanted to get the Levant after they defeat their enemies there. None of those got close to Jerusalem in the end.

Having said that, I do want to investigate the ingame Crusade arriving in Anatolia.
But I need a savegame before it happens, where it is reproducable.

Thanks, but I can't really debug anything with that savegame.
Again, I need a game where the issue happens after the save.

While the French 1st UHV is still not one of the easier UHVs, it's significantly less difficult than it was a couple versions ago.
I'm actually thinking of nerfing the starting bonuses back a bit, not further buffing them.

 

The 1st Crusade fought their way all the way from Anatolia to Jerusalem - its original target was actually the Sultanate of Rum.

Really? I remember definitely having enough time to get everything done when I played it, even with a bit of dawdling in the middle and probably non-optimal city placement. Just keep spamming axemen (and then swordsmen/catapults), pretty much; Paris's production is decent once you get the iron. There should also be roads connecting most of the cities, IIRC.

 

I van nőt give u better save i saved when i noticed it.

French are absolutly doable. Even ön emperor.

 

Houston we got problem!

I tried the Venetian 1+2 UHV just to know its still doable. But. I have been voted for the 2nd crusade and bribed the 3rd one and directed to to Constantinopolis. As I am intended to do so. So i had some unit remaining from the 2nd crusade and started to transport them toward my empire to fight against Byz. After the 3rd crusade arrived (they were pretty small, compared to regular (jerusalem) crusades) I had to bombard the walls due to strong defense. It was still above 100% when my units started to desert/ go home. But here comes the trick, my other previously remaining crusader units went home. The saves hopefully make more sense.

 

France is simple enough if you follow an efficient strategy.

First thing is to make sure your first three cities all have access to iron. You can hook it up immediately with the starting workers and it gives a big boost to production.

City 1: Paris, obviously
City 2: Langres on the wine. Gives you access to wine without the tech, so +1 in all cities
City 3: Aix-La-Chapelle 1N of the wine in Lorraine

Starting strategy
Research Calendar, Manorialism and Chain Mail in that order. Resources, then Chateaus, then Swordsmen
Start building Barracks in all cities until Manorialism then switch in Chateaus. Then finish the barracks and build axes then swords once the tech is ready.
Send 2 axes and 1 archer to conquer Caen from the off. Only nearby city defended by only one archer and has a worker
Use your remaining axes to defend your iron and workers, one for each city. Try and encourage barbs to attack them on forests, hills and across rivers to skill them up a bit
Skirmisher goes and contacts Byzantium for trade. If they have been hit hard by barbs, you may be able to trade them a spare iron for some olives which will help with happiness

General strategy
Immediately build Chateaus in all cities you capture for stability. Then barracks then soldiers
Never ever ever let a city go unhappy or unhealthy, again for stability. Check them every turn and defend your resources. Unhappiness will cause stability revolts, almost guaranteed

Expansion strategy
Stage 1:
Keep an axeman assigned to each of the four cities you started with to defend production resources as these cities will be producing armies constantly
Once you have four CRI axes / swords on top of your defensive force, with archers to defend captured cities, send them to conquer Lyon, then Marseille / Aix if it's still standing. Then more axes / swords to conquer Bordeaux
Converge those two armies on Toulouse / Narbo whilst sending another force to conquer Milan
Build three settlers, for Picardy, Orleans and Saxony. Usually from Paris, as it hits the happy cap first. Time it so the Picardy settler is ready to stop the 800 AD spawn of Calais, and keep the Saxony settler in reserve until the last turn to avoid instability from building in foreign territory too early

Stage 2:
As you approach the UHV date, heal and reinforce your forces in Toulouse / Narbo and Milan whilst building a strong force in Langres
A couple of turns before the UHV date, conquer Barcelona, Florence and Augsburg. These are all unstable cities, so leave it as late as possible to avoid revolts. Settle the Saxony city around the same time

Stage 3:
Profit!

 

I have a question about a possibility of expanding the Crusades at some point. If Jerusalem does belong to a Christian power, and in particular if it is held by Christians for a long time, could there be the option of a normal Crusade sent somewhere else? Like Antioch, which historically was a Crusader Kingdom for a century or so? Not for 1.5 but at some point in the future

 

there you go

 

Yeah, I know why is this happening in the code, I could change it fairly easily.
The question is, do we want to change it?
Currently when some of your Crusading units return home, some remnants of an earlier Crusade might also leave with them.
Doesn't sound entirely irrealistic to me, and not convinced that it's bad for gameplay either.

That's absolutely intentional, and entirely historical as far as I know. Not all the original Crusading units are willing to participate in a derailed one. Especially against fellow Christians.

 

Yeah, maybe.
Some Crusade updates are definitely planned.
Maybe some of them will even be implemented for 1.5.
E.g. making Crusades participation more beneficial for the non-leader civ is long overdue.

 

Can you mellow out the text for saying "no" to the Pope? Perhaps even have three options. It seems stupid that if I'm fighting a life and death war, and cannot spare troops for a Crusade, that I have to tell the Pope to go "shove it". Why not a third option which promises soldiers for the next Crusade? Or perhaps the Pope just simply should not be asking countries that are at war, to give soldiers.

But the: 1) I love the Pope 2) The Pope is Satan, options are a bit ridiculous.

 

Also before Crusader reform, the entire Muslim world in this game needs a big reform. IMO you shouldn't have included the Middle East at all in the mod, given that it is clearly not remotely a priority for this mod. The units of the Arabs are ridiculous, the poorness of the richest region on map is ridiculous (Egypt), the failure for the Arabs to conquer much outside of Syria/Egypt is also ridiculous, and also the fact that ALL Near East civilizations are represented by the "Arabs" is also ridiculous. Easily an Egyptian civilization should be added, to at least create some competition against the Ottomans, and

I mean, these were the richest, most scientifically advanced, most urban centres of the map, for the vast majority of the game timeline, and it is so obviously shunted.

How is it that there is an access in Iceland for Vinland, but there is nothing to represent Indian Ocean trade coming from the Red Sea/Egypt? Indian Ocean trade was massive, and not only for the people of the Near East, but for Mediterranean commerce as well. Vinland was a short lived project, which produced nothing.

 

I absolutely disagree about a 3rd, neutral option.
This should be a meaningful choice, with you wanting to go on a Crusade whenever it's possible (and that's something which should be significantly improved, actually it already came up in one of my posts in the last few days)
Wording can be changed of course, I don't really care about that.

 

Well its just as ridiculous to equate the Pope with Satan just because you can't let go of a few troops, don't you think? Just moderate the text of the second option.

 

I also disagree with most things you have stated here.
Egypt is the most fertile region, enabling 3-4 huge cities, and I do not see any problems with Arab units. Their UU is great, and they have good production and science progress in most games.
AI expansion can be a problem for most civs, that's not unique to them. Or to the mod. But while they do underperform in some games, I saw quite huge Arab empires in some other ones.
Having said that, RFCE's Muslim civs will get some love soon enough.

EDIT: did you mean starting units for them?
If yes, I do agree that it could be changed. Currently they have the horse archers because of their mobility, but I will gladly change them to something more fitting.

No intentions to do any more projects. Neither for the Middle East, nor for Russia. No point in adding those without any real competition for them.
Increased trade will be represented with a (some?) trading company in the region, like Karimi Family

 

Possibly two negative options instead?

Decline option 1: Whilst we appreciate the need to support the faithful, we cannot spare any troops at this time.
Result: Decline to assist this time, lose some faith but still be requested for the next few crusades
Decline option 2: I will never play a part in the schemes of that snake of a Pope
Result: Decline to assist, lose lots of faith, don't be requested for the next few crusades

That way there is a straight decline, which knocks faith but not completely, and the nuclear option which means you don't get any more requests for a while but lose a lot of faith.

That way you can avoid the full penalties for missing one Crusade when you are in the middle of a major war and can't spare the troops

 

Big thing for Arabs, imo, is that they should flip all of Egypt. At the moment they seem to end up bottled up and unable to take Alexandria, particularly if the AI ERE builds some swords or spears there.
With that and another settler to found a city in Egypt I think they would be much more consistently powerful in the game.

Also possibly a set 'respawn' where they flip all the cities in their flip zone again around 1300AD, representing the Mamluk Sultanate. Just in case the AI has ballsed it up a bit and they have collapsed / shrunk to nothing. That would mean they were a stronger threat to the Ottomans.

For starting units, I think they should start with Ghazis, both as their starting unit and with the tech. That would make them more of a threat to the Byzantines and would allow them to race through the Middle East and Africa as IRL. Horse archers weren't really used in the early Rashidun invasions, only after Persia was conquered, so it is odd for them to start with almost all horse archers.

 

I disagree, ghazi are top powerfull át tehát date. Só they would fő big and collapse.

 

If we're going by historicity the Arabs should conquer right up to the Strait of Gibraltar and then have the Cordobans take up the reins. Later they should collapse to core or something to lose North Africa. The problem is that the Arab dynasties and their territories changed too quickly to be completely represented in the mod, just like how a totally accurate 500 AD start would feature Visigoths in Iberia, Ostrogoths in Italia, and Vandals in Tunisia.