1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Egypt as a full civ

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall: Europe' started by AbsintheRed, Apr 25, 2017.

  1. Baron03

    Baron03 Baron

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    Messages:
    213
    I like all of your initial ideas for changing the Arab UHVs (combining the first two UHVs) whether or not Egypt is added. And I'm always interested about new civs. I don't see any problems with adding Egypt except for Bifurcation of a large Arabia player (AI or human).

    Two possible conditions:
    1. Only spawn if Arabia's stability is below zero.
    2. When Egypt spawns and after the core cities in Egypt flip, should any remaining western Arab cities in Northern Africa go through a revolt and turn independent?
     
    cmakk1012 likes this.
  2. cmakk1012

    cmakk1012 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    65
    Conditional spawns, huh? That'd be pretty cool. Reminds me of the whole issue where a strong Byzantium that has conquered back (or never lost) all of Anatolia suddenly has Ottomans spawn in their core territories. For game balance I totally understand why it has to happen but it would be cool if a Byzantium that, say, owned every city in Anatolia didn't get an Ottoman spawn.

    I agree that Arab N African cities should go indy on Egypt spawn or else flip to Egypt
     
  3. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,140
    Location:
    Canada
    I think you might be misunderstanding me. I'm talking about the future UHVs.

    So it would look like this:

    Umayyads: Conquer Egypt, North Africa (up to Tanjah), Cilicia, Malatya (thughūr), Cyprus by X date (by ~750, not sure how hard that would be, but around that)

    Abbasids: First to Research X technologies

    Abbasid "Revival": Don't lose a city in Syria, Egypt, Cyprus, Arabia until 1260 --> This would include new barb spawns to represent various uprisings, and of course the Mongol invasion of Syria, as well as fighting back the Fatimids (Egyptians).

    You can keep the old UHV names if you want, that doesn't matter, I'm only talking about what the UHVs actually consist of.
     
  4. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Yeah, my point was that since we can't tie the UHVs as clearly to ruling dynasties as with Egypt, the goals themselves doesn't necessarily reflect only the Umayyad conqest and their largest territorial extent.
    So the date is closer to 900 than to 750 (100 years are by no means enough, so the deadline will probably be right before the bigger revolts started historically), Morocco and Iberia won't be included at all (that's kept for Cordoba), and I might even add Sicily and some other islands where Islam spread historically if it seems good for gameplay (even if the conquest of those wasn't under the direct control of the Umayyads or the Abbasids).
    The naming was just an example; it already shows this to some extent.
     
  5. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,140
    Location:
    Canada
    But you can, because the Abbasids didn't make any lasting conquests. All the territory I listed above, were conquered by the Umayyads. The Abbasids actually "lost" territory in the Maghreb, Spain (due to Abdul Rahman) and overtime in Arabia as well (amongst other places overtime). So UHV1 should be closely attached to the Umayyads. Hence why I said 750, that is when the Abbasids come to power.
     
  6. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    It would even have the additional benefit of spawning the Cordobans properly in 756, with southern Iberia and northern Morocco also included in the first Arabian goal.
    But as I said, I can't do that. 120 years are simply not enough for that with a fun gameplay. Won't be enough even if I somewhat expand the early timeline (which I actually plan to do).
     
  7. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    937
    That's why I'd say go for controlling the full extent of the Abbasid Caliphate territories (those directly controlled and those ruled through rulers who paid lip service to the Caliph):



    I appreciate it's not all that historic, that the Abbasids didn't actually conquer most of it, and that some of the territory was actually controlled by the Aghlabids and other, but for gameplay I think it will be the best solution - all of the current 2nd Arab UHV and also Sicily and Crete. Leaves space for Morocco to spawn earlier with the Idrisids in 788 as discussed in another thread, and will be challenging to achieve by 969AD (Egypt spawn) without needing cheats like paradrops.

    At 969AD you flip Ifriqiya, Cyrencia and Egypt to the Egyptians and Sicily and Crete become indy. Then you have to fight your way back whilst meeting the 2nd tech goal, and finally regain dominance over all your Islamic rivals, whether through score, vassalage, culture or some combination.

    The only concern, imo, is that it may make the Egyptian game too easy if the human controlled Egypt flips a whole heap of cities in Egypt and along the coast of Africa. Is there any way for human controlled Egypt to just flip Ifriqiya and have to fight their way along whilst the AI flips the lot? I know some modmods have done this, but not sure if it's something you are willing to consider in RFCE.
     
  8. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Yeah, that was The Turk's suggestion too when it first came up.
    I already took quite a few notes about this whole thing, but can't answer what will be the preferred solution in the end.
    Depends on way too many things as of now, will see when we get there.

    Same with the 1st Arab goal.
    I would also prefer to have it till 750, but I don't see any good options how could it be done as an UHV in the mod.
    So we will probably have to stick with the mixed Umayyad-Abbasid conquest goal.

    Anyway, probably it would be good to talk about the timeline too, as I also brought that up and that's also heavily related to these civs:
    https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/turn-timeline-changes.614941/
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2017
  9. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,140
    Location:
    Canada
    When are you planning on setting the start date? I would opt for just adding more dates within the timeline, 500AD is good enough IMO.

    This UHV would be a pressure conquest UHV, where you would try to conquer all that territory as fast as possible. Yes it might be a bit difficult, but the territory involved isn't that great. If you give the Arabs a UU with a speed bonus, plus they start with catapults, all the better. IIRC 150 years is what you get to conquer the Hejaz, Yemen and Levant in SoI as the Ayyubids. So this shouldn't be that different.
     
  10. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Oh, that's what I meant. More turns for the critical timeline periods.
    Check the thread I just posted.
    Actually 150 years in the midgame is 100 turns there, if I'm not mistaken.
     
  11. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Conditional spawns are not that hard to add from a technical point of view.
    The gameplay aspects are a different thing though. I'm not sure at all if we could have a meaningful gameplay in RFCE if some of the key civs' spawn is conditional.
    I consider both the Ottomans and the anti-Crusader civ crucial for a good progress in the mod.
    Btw I usually hate historic railroading in most games. We can't really live without it in RFC though. Almost all key aspects depend on that to some extent.
    Yeah, will have to find a way to not have Arab cities in NAfrica after the revolts.
     
    cmakk1012 likes this.
  12. cmakk1012

    cmakk1012 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    65
    Yeah, it wouldn't be a realistic Anatolia without the major Turkish migrations. Makes me hanker for a Rûm civilization to be honest :lol: After all, it would spice up Anatolia and make it more likely for Byz to be weak

    Anti-Crusader Civ is cool too, especially since tweaking that makes French UHV 2 more interesting than a whole bunch of die rolls when holding Jerusalem!
     
    gilgames likes this.
  13. Baron03

    Baron03 Baron

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    Messages:
    213
    Should Egypt units spawn outside Arab cities in Northern Africa? Or would stability map change be plausible?
     
  14. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    I meant the new Egypt in that context. Right now Arabia is the anti-Crusade civ, altough doesn't really do anything.
    With Egypt under Saladin we will have the civ's core are separated from the main Crusade targets. Which enables many more options.
    For example I might implement a mechanic that adds an extra army for AI Egypt a couple turns after Jerusalem was conqered with a Crusade. It would probably be both more fun and more realistic than the current revolt mechanics there.
     
    Mammon, Publicola and cmakk1012 like this.
  15. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Egypt shouldn't get those cities on spawn. Also cities in Tunisia will most likely flip to them, so no units there either.
    North African cities (for example in Algier if they got there) should go independent in one way or another. Barbs, special revolts, etc. Not yet sure which will be the best suited for it.
    Province stability will definitely change for the Arabs on the Fatimid/Egypt spawn. It already works that way for all civs.
     
  16. cmakk1012

    cmakk1012 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    65
    Yes, that's great! What I always dreamed the Crusades could be! Hahaha

    Hey and then if a Civ held Jerusalem for x hundred years maybe it could become a Border province?
     
  17. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,140
    Location:
    Canada
    I'm confused, if you are already adding more dates to the timeline, what is the problem with expecting the player to conquer North Africa and parts of Anatolia by 750? The goal isn't actually that difficult, if your only foe is the Byzantines and independent cities. This is a time pressure UHV, and it makes sense realistically.

    The Fatimids should spawn in two ways:

    1) AI -> Spawns with all territory from Algeria to Egypt in 969AD

    OR

    2) Human -> Spawns with all territory from Algeria to Ifriqiya, and the first goal (or part of it), will be to conquer Egypt. Human player would spawn in 909AD.
     
  18. DC123456789

    DC123456789 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    2,880
    Location:
    Canada
    Please do. The current mechanic for losing Crusader state cities makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
     
    Mammon, gilgames and cmakk1012 like this.
  19. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    937
    In fact the Ayubbids in SOI get from 1169AD-1245AD to conquer it all, which is around 50 turns on SOI's timescale. Although they do get the advantages of a strong mid game starting position, flipping developed cities in Egypt and also strong production centres like Damascus which are close to the regions they need to capture.

    Unless the Arabs in RFCE are going to flip Egypt as well then I doubt the Umayyad conquests will be possible in time without some extra powerful units. They can be done in 90 turns in RFCCW, including Iberia and Persia, but that's with the advantage of Ghazis with 4:move: and +25% city attack.
     
  20. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    937
    This = awesome.

    One option could also be the potential for the controller of Damascus to call for holy wars like in SOI. Then they get a free stack of units to take back Jerusalem. Could also be used as part of the Arab 3rd UHV - the ability to call holy wars to aid other Muslims becomes part of re-exerting the authority of the caliphate.
     

Share This Page