1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. 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. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,143
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    If the early game is going to be expanded, and the map of the Middle East revised, I don't see why it should be so difficult to take a few Byzantine and Independent cities. Especially since you don't even need to conquer Morocco or Iberia.
     
  2. gilgames

    gilgames Priest-King

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    694
    Location:
    Budapest, Hungary
    Instead of chit-chat, i gave it a try! At the start, i changed axe and spear to HA, due to mobility. Then started to conquer current arabian uhc 2. This is the result:
    If you watch it closely a settler is on the way to Oran as well. I had to use HA only and Vaulted arches came pretty late too. I had a settler ready for Crete early on, was lucky with palermo, 2 archers moved out. And in general i had a lucky combat versus Byzance at start. (only 1 HA died) But anyway its doable even with the current setup.
    Vaulted Arches would help a lot! +1 settler also 5-6 HA or spacial UU also. If you want to change arab UU than make it long lasting one as currently, it would be so bad to have a good unit only gor one early uhv. I would say its even possible to conquer 1 city in Aqutania/Provance by 969CE. Using my save and WB the galley back to Tanjah and try it...
     

    Attached Files:

  3. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,925
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Yeah, fixing how Jerusalem is handled between the Crusades is a very old plan of mine.
    I think a separate Egypt civ helps greatly in it's representation, the always collapsed Arabia was one of the holdbacks for implementing it earlier.
    Now with 2 possible AI civs one of them will be available most of the time.
    Well, that wasn't the question, I think you misunderstood the previous posts.
    Obviously it can be easily done by 900, with proper starting units and UU we can have a quite detailed UHV goal.
    750 on the other hand is more than doubtful.

    Also: Aquitania and Provence are by no means Arabian goals in 969.
    Don't forget that Cordoba spawns in the 8th century, representing the Iberian part of the former empire.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  4. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,925
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    One more significant thing that didn't come up IIRC:
    If we have the first Arab goal in 750, it would lead to a very strange gameplay for 150-200 years.
    All the revolts and the Fatimid spawn happen around or after 900.
    The player would just sit around and wait for losing all those territories? It's not the civ's core or historical area for the upcoming goals, like with Byzantium.
    Generally I think the deadline for conquest goals like this (e.g. the 1st French UHV) should be right before those territories are lost.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
    cmakk1012 likes this.
  5. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,143
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    I'm a bit confused what you mean by this. And no rebellions by members of the Prophet's household (Alids) were an ongoing phenomenon, coupled with Kharijites and various other usurpers, there was always a constant challenge to Umayyad or Abbasid power. The real trouble however began in the mid-800s (much like with Francia actually).

    But the 2nd UHV would be research technology, but this can also include Culture or Wonder building. This is something that will require a bit of testing, which we will all help out with. But again, I'm not sure what you are expecting otherwise.
     
  6. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,925
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    I was stricktly speaking from a gameplay perspective.
    What I meant was that I'm not sure there could be a fun gameplay for Arabia between the proposed UHV goal of 750 and 950, knowing that he/she would lose most of those territories.
    What's the goal with them during that time? Also why wouldn't he/she just leave those cities deliberately in a bad condition?
     
  7. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,143
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Then have the Arab civ collapse after ~970. The Fatimids end up covering the entire region of the Levant and Arabia in game anyway, so there is no room for Arabia anyhow. For the player, the need to build wonders/get tech, will mean that you cannot ignore cities. But because the entire first part of your game would be building military units, you now have some time to catch up in tech.
     
  8. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,925
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    On the contrary. The player will want to get rid of those cities he/she will loose anyway in the 10th century, exactly because of research. To get rid of the research penalty as soon as possible.
    But as I said, the main problem is the time between the proposed UHV date and the Fatimid spawn (and other revolts).
    For France it's ideal. You have to reach it right before the spawns happen. Here it would mean 200 years of waiting for the territory losses.
     
  9. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,143
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Didn't you say you were going to add a 'Tunisian' Civilization? Have that spawn as the Aghlabids. You also had the Rustamids (Kharijites) in Algeria. The Aghlabids would spawn in 800, so only 50 years after your conquest.

    Ideally the Aghlabids would be close friends with the Arab Civilization, since historically Aghlab was appointed as an autonomous governor by Harun al-Rashid.

    I don't know how to depict the Rustamids. Ideally they would be an independent civilization. Either way both the Aghlabids and the Rustamids survive until 909 when both get crushed by the Fatimids.

    What is funny is that the Abbasids when coming to power in 750, didn't care a whole lot about the Maghreb. That is why they were more than happy for it to be ruled by a client states. So IMO having the player "abandon" North Africa is actually quite historical. You can have barb spawns in Algeria, and the Aghlabids in Tunisia/Libya (Ifriqiya), and that should solve the problem.

    I don't think anybody would want to jettison Egypt/Greater Syria, so that solves the problem.
     
  10. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    938
    I think the Tunisian civ is going to be more focused on the Hafsids. If we add the Aghlabids as Tunisia then they are only around for 30-40 turns, and there is no real gameplay to be had. No point, imo, adding a new civ if it's just there to take territories from the Arabs. Could just as easily do that with a scripted 'rebellion' or reduction of the cities as happens in England.
     
  11. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,925
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Yeah, Tunisians won't come that early.
    I liked quite a few aspects in the way it was implemented in RFCE++, the initial version will be fairly close to that.

    Btw I'm also not sure if I want to move Morocco earlier.
    Then again, that's not that closely related to this thread, so it's not that relevant right now.
     
  12. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,143
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    You can have an unplayable "Tunisian" civilization early on, have it collapse due to the Fatimids rising in 909, and then have them respawn as the Hafsids later.
     
  13. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,925
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    No chance for anything like that.
    RFCE's Tunisian "civ" will start with the Hafsids.
    Any dynasties we want to have before that will be represented with indies and barbs.
     
  14. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,143
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Can you force flip AI/Human cities with independent cities? Otherwise the human player can keep them undeveloped. Its not like North Africa (West of Egypt), was at all important to the Abbasids, given the massive fertility of Mesopotamia (the Sawad in particular).
     
  15. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,925
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Sure, but I usually prefer not to hardcode things.
    Also while I don't doubt that Mesopotamia was way more important for them, I think it would be strange for most players to consider Tunisia so unimporant that it flips away without any good reasons.
     
  16. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,143
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Listen, I'm only suggesting this because you were complaining about having cities in North Africa for UHV2. Yes UHV2 is not only going to be one of science/culture, but also keeping together your empire, as rebellions slowly increase by the 800s (especially by 850). UHV3 should therefore be to not lose a city or rather to hold onto your conquered territories until 1100 or something.
     
  17. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,925
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    No, I mentioned it as a possible issue (potentially leading to strange gameplay) to have those cities for a couple centuries after the UHV deadline, since you know they will flip away soon and they are even harmful for your next goal. By the time those cities could be a net surplus for research you lose them.
    As I pointed out, it's usually much better to set the UHV dates right before the big changes happen.
    Having said that, this is only a minor concern compared to the lack of enough time. That will be the deciding factor. Will test it out when I get there.
     
    Last edited: May 6, 2017
  18. The Turk

    The Turk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,143
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Great, please let me help you out with the testing if possible, would love to try it out!
     

Share This Page