HUGE Medieval Patch

[kIndal]

Spain really originated with the Aragon possessions and the reconquista, didn't it?

well, no exactly. When Muslims conquered the visigoth kingdom survived some center of resitence in the Norther Mountains. There were mainly 4:
*Asturias:where expanded to SOuth formed the kingdom of Leon and Castile.
*Navarre:who created a independent kingdom that was conquested by Catholic monarchs.
*Aragon:which formed the kingdom of Aragon that when joined with Castile formed the actual Spain
*Catalonia:which was a part of the Spanish mark of Charlemagne and then joined with Aragon.


If you need help in history or in playtesting just send me a email

 

[Vrylakas]

Well, Ok, I wasn't going to say it but kIndal is correct; Poland was more important to Western and Central European history in the Middle Ages than Russia. I have a bias; while I now live in the U.S.A. my family is from Poland.

However, Old Rus (capital at Kiev/Kiiv) had minimal relations with anyone in Europe except for the Byzantine Empire and Serbia. When the Mongols struck in 1239, Rus was destroyed and its successor states in the north (Novgorod, Moskva, etc.) were almost sealed off completely from the rest of Europe until Ivan Grozny ("the Terrible") in the 16th century. From then on Russia had increasingly intense diplomatic relations with the West, but the real relationship between Russia and the West begins with Piotr/Peter I at the end of the 17th century, with that damned Great Northern War that Denmark, Poland-Lithuania and Sweden all lost, and Russia won... Russia has loomed over European history ever since, but as many historians point out Russia never experienced the Renaissance or Enlightenment.

Nobody knows when Poland was created, but we know the emperor Otto I complained about Poland to a Jewish envoy (Ibn Jakub) for the Cordoba caliphate in 963, and Rome recognized us three years later. In 1241 when the Mongols reached Poland, German and Polish knights stood side by side at Legnica - and were slaughtered together. The 3rd oldest university in Central Europe was established in Krakow (now called the Jagiellonian University/Uniwersitet Jagiellonski), although there were already schools all over Poland by then - witness Kopernik. Poland expanded for a couple centuries (conquering Kiev, and the English-Danish king Canut is half Polish through his mother) but after warring unsuccessfully with the Lithuanians we decided in 1386 to join countries under a Lithuanian dynasty, the Jagiellos. In 1410 and again in the 1450s the combined Polish-Lithuanian armies defeated the Teutonic Knights (capturing Marienburg) and made Prussia a Polish possession for two centuries. Polish-Lithuanian armies repeatedly defeated the Turks (Chocim especially) and Russians (Smolensk spent a couple centuries under Polish-Lithuanian rule), occupied Moscow (1610-1613; remember Boris Gudanov?) and before the final destruction drove the Turks away from Vienna in 1683. The 18th century was mostly downhill, ending in the disaster of 1795. Most modern Europeans think of Poland as the constant victim of Russia and Germany, but in the Middle Ages Poland-Lithuania was a major Central European power famous for its winged cavalry. There's a obelisk in Rome that refers to Poland as "Antemurale christianitatis"; (Bulwark of Christendom) because of the wars against the Russians and Turks.

Sorry about the lecture - I was going to hold my peace and let you develop your patch on your own terms with a few general suggestions. However, kIndal let the proverbial cat out of the bag and I let it all out. Sorry again. I mentioned Serbia and Hungary in my original post because they too played crucial roles in European Medieval history, though few recognize this now. (For instance, the successful rise of the Habsburgs in the Holy Roman Empire is largely because of the interference of a Hungarian king, Matthias; and bells ring at noon across the West today because of a Hungarian victory over the Turks at Nandorfehervar/modern Belgrade in the mid-15th century. The Bohemians also gave birth to Europe's first successful Protestant movement under Jan Hus in 1415 - a century before Martin Luther and who was influenced by the Englishmen John Wycliff - and whose general Jan Zizka introduced the first form of mobile "armored" warfare that was copied throughout Europe right up til the Russian Civil War of 1917-1922.) It is the fashion now in European historiography to assume that because the last 3 centuries have been almost completely dominated by the Atlantic Western states, that ALL of European history must have revolved around them; unfortunately, Europe is culturally far richer than that...

Sorry again - Clearly you will never accomodate all nations in your patch, nor should you attempt to. As well, as I've mentioned before, the time period you're covering is immense and one of great change. Even the players are different from beginning to end. However, if accuracy is your aim...

<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/cwm33.gif" border=0>


------------------
*************************
"...über den Bergen sind auch Leute..."

[This message has been edited by Vrylakas (edited June 12, 2001).]

 

[Henrik]

And we shouldn't forget that the polish Hussars where the best knights in Europe, they where still the best cavalry in existence as late as 1660!
But in 1660 the western more well trained infantry usually beat the crap out of them, they still won cavalry skirmishes though.

 

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Morten Blaabjerg:
-The way I am simulating the vast number of minor cities, is to use the mining field a little differently. Players will be able to build villages in all terrains, and boost production with 2-4 shields (playtesting will reveal how great the number should be). -this way you get the picture of hundreds of minor cities, and a few great ones with growth potential. Maybe you could use a similar concept?

Although the idea sounds excelent I don't think I will be able to do it, mines are just to damn important! I guess I could just make the special rescourses better and exclude mines I will think about this, I have been trying to use mines for different things earlier (I used to plan some kind of woodcutter improvement which would be mines buildable only in the forest)
but I allways had to go back and change them back to mines again <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif" border=0>

-The fortresses are really underestimated in the normal game. I am using these to simulate the growth of castles and strongholds all over Europe (with appropriate altered grapx). -With feudalism/feudal empire (communism/republic) you're able to position units in vital ressource squares near the cities, and castles will really make a strategic difference.

Another very underestimated tile improvement is the Airbase, it will give one extra food, it will count as stackable and as a road/railroad and you can make details of it change colour depending on its ownership, apart from all this it is usable as a normal airbase and will change apearance when an air unit refuels in it.

With varied attribution of ressources to the terrains (some rich, others not), the really good spots will be worth fighting for, and wars will be much more interesting.

You know that you can have resources detract from a terrains normal values as well as increase them?
This makes for some interesting rescourses, you cannot change a terrains defence bonus or movement cost though. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif" border=0>

Originally posted by Henrik:
I was thinking about beginning my scenario in 1520 (since your Danish I guess you might be able to figure out why)

No. Why?

They don't teach you about Stockholms bloodbath in Denmark?

<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/jawdrop.gif" border=0>


This is one of the most emphasised things in Swedish schools when it come to history. Your beloved Cristian II gathered all the swedish nobles in Stockholm, prommising them that all thier "missdoings" would be forgotten if they just came and swore him fealty.
Then he sealed the gates and slaughtered every one of them.
Almost...
There was this rather young man named Gustav Vasa who had been away, he lead a second rebelion and took back all of Sweden.

Enough of nationalistic stuff <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>
I would have been a Dane at the time since I live in Skåne <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>

Good idea! If you have other interesting graphics (icons etc) I'd like to take a look.
Let's get back together sometime. I haven't got so much time right this week (other work), but by the end of the week or so I'll get more into getting the pieces together.][/B]

Ok, I will send you some stuff in the end of the week.

[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited June 13, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited June 13, 2001).]

 

[Vrylakas]

From Henrik:
And we shouldn't forget that the polish Hussars where the best knights in Europe, they where still the best cavalry in existence as late as 1660!

Leading unfortunately to the myth of World War II that Polish mounted cavalry, armed only with lances, attacked German Panzer columns - an untruth.

But in 1660 the western more well trained infantry usually beat the crap out of them, they still won cavalry skirmishes though.

Yes, the day of the mounted charge had passed with the onset of coordinated and trained infantry - especially when firearms entered the scene. Swiss pikemen were defeating mounted knights in the late 1400s. Still, the Poles were able to drive the Swedes, Tartars and Russians out of Poland by the 1660s in the 'Deluge' wars.

But as you say - the object here isn't to satisfy everyone's nationalistic passions; it's to create a reasonably historically accurate and playable game patch. On that note, I think we're all solidly behind you and excited Morten!

------------------
*************************
"...über den Bergen sind auch Leute..."

 

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Vrylakas:

Yes, the day of the mounted charge had passed with the onset of coordinated and trained infantry - especially when firearms entered the scene. Swiss pikemen were defeating mounted knights in the late 1400s.

Yes but the Hussars where still the best cavalry there was back then, the early musket cavalry was very lousy.

Still, the Poles were able to drive the Swedes, Tartars and Russians out of Poland by the 1660s in the 'Deluge' wars.

Yes but not becouse of thier cavalry, although it did help a lot it was the sudden arise of Polish peasent revolts, I have actually submited a scenario about this (these) wars starting in 1655, try it out when thunderfall gets around to upload it. (or try to download it here )
The poles arent playable though <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif" border=0> a human player would quickly rout the Swedish/Russian invassoins, reconquer Hungary from the Cossacks and spend the rest of the scenario struggling whit his inferior government form (the polish-Lithuanian comonwealths system when it came to voting took very long time at best and was never able to reach a dession at worst, this becouse just one vote against was enough to stop a proposal, and every little noble had a vote).

EDIT: Added link for my scenario.

[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited June 13, 2001).]

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

VRYLAKAS:
Sorry about the lecture - I was going to hold my peace and let you develop your patch on your own terms with a few general suggestions.

-I am following all this with great interest! So don't be sorry, this is exactly what I need to get this together in a balanced way. I will harshly and ruthlessly decide what to leave out. But as I said earlier, I can only know so little, and it is really great to get some different opinions about what is important and what is not. I found the polish stuff very inspiring.

HENRIK:
They don't teach you about Stockholms bloodbath in Denmark?

Actually I had a friend who wrote an assignment about this, but it seems I never really found out what it was about... But I feel something emerging from the deep, dark abyss of my mind...

The primary focus of danish history teaching (in schools) seems to be the german occupation of Denmark in 1940-45 and the resistance movement etc... greatly overestimated in my opinion -and also in most scholars I think. History teaching is really too oldfashioned. In the early grades, you get the ancient stuff, the stone age etc. Then you get some medieval history, reformation etc. and in the later grades you get modern history, WWII etc.

The way it works at the university, is that you get 3 long-length courses covering all of history, from the babylonians to the space race. Within these you specialize in smaller subjects, which you can delve deeply into. Some are offered as classes, others are self-studies, and you can choose depending on your interest. Gone are most of the royal succession-stuff and the useless handready regnal years of kings etc. -which tended to be very nationalistic anyway, and not very focused on explaining what happened, and the causes bringing the changes about. -Which is what history is about to me.

It is a strength, because students become very specialized, and know a lot about small areas. But "normal" people tend to think of it as a weakness, because they expect a historian to know all of history -which is impossible, except in a very broad way.

HENRIK:
...you cannot change a terrains defence bonus or movement cost though.

BUT YES! You can! What makes you say so? There are specific parameters for exactly those in the rules.txt! -it is the first parameters, if I remember correctly.

HENRIK:
Another very underestimated tile improvement is the Airbase, it will give one extra food, it will count as stackable and as a road/railroad and you can make details of it change colour depending on its ownership, apart from all this it is usable as a normal airbase and will change apearance when an air unit refuels in it.

Interesting. I might rethink my use for this field. The downfall is that AI players rarely build these -if they don't have a bunch of air units, that is, which they won't have in a medieval scenario.

-Keep the comments rolling! This is very inspiring!

Yours Truly,
Morten

 

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Morten Blaabjerg:
The primary focus of danish history teaching (in schools) seems to be the german occupation of Denmark in 1940-45 and the resistance movement etc... greatly overestimated in my opinion -and also in most scholars I think. History teaching is really too oldfashioned. In the early grades, you get the ancient stuff, the stone age etc. Then you get some medieval history, reformation etc. and in the later grades you get modern history, WWII etc.

Swedish schools suck when it comes to teaching history, acording to one teacher my brother had, Skåne would have been purchased by Sweden back in the dark ages, this was ofcourse not true, the reallity was much more complicated.

In Swedish schools you first learn about the Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age (not sure that the last one is the correct english term) then we have to learn about the swedish kings during the time when Sweden was a Great Power (but most of what they teach is just worthless rubish)
And then they start all over whit a quick rebriefing of the Stone/Bronze/Iron age. Followed by some info about the world in the 1700's and then its the revolutions and then its industrialization, and so on (thats about where I am schoolwise right now).
Also all of it is very Swedo-centric.

If one wants to learn stuff one needs to get books and find it out for oneself.

Sorry about the lecture on Swedish schools, while I do prefer history before some other subject in school I still think it is managed in a very sad way

The reason for my reaction about Stockholms bloodbath was perhaps becouse it is so emphesised in Sweden, I couldn't imagine that they don't bring even bring it up in Denmark.
I guess I have gotten somewhat affected by our bad history education (so far, hopefully it will be better when I get older).

It is a strength, because students become very specialized, and know a lot about small areas. But "normal" people tend to think of it as a weakness, because they expect a historian to know all of history -which is impossible, except in a very broad way.

This sounds like an excelent system to me, I hope I ours is as good when its time for me to go to the university.

 

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Morten Blaabjerg:
BUT YES! You can! What makes you say so? There are specific parameters for exactly those in the rules.txt! -it is the first parameters, if I remember correctly.

You can insert values, but the game will ignore them

 

[Vrylakas]

By Henrik:
Yes but the Hussars where still the best cavalry there was back then, the early musket cavalry was very lousy.

Yes, I was thinking of that the other night while watching an otherwise decent history film in which 17th century soldiers were hitting their targets nearly every time with their wheel lock and flintlock smoothbore muskets. And indeed cavalry could still be grimly effective in special conditions; if however these conditions were not present (wide open dry plain to charge on with minimal physical obstacles) the result could be deadly for the cavalry.

Henrik wrote:
Yes but not becouse of thier cavalry, although it did help a lot it was the sudden arise of Polish peasent revolts, I have actually submited a scenario about this (these) wars starting in 1655, try it out when thunderfall gets around to upload it. (or try to download it here )

Thanks for the link to the scenario; I'll give it a try. Yes, Polish peasant revolts played a role in the ousting of the Swedes (but not the Russians or Tartars; that was the regular forces). The Poland of 1660 was a mere shadow of the Poland of 1560, largely because the Jagiellonian dynasty had lapsed and the nobility (szlachta) had taken over, electing weak kings. In fact, when the Deluge wars started there was a Swedish dynasty sitting on the Polish-Lithuanian throne, the Catholic half of the Vasas (Polish: Waza). The treaty that ended the Deluge wars between Poland and Sweden forced the Catholic (Polish) Vasas to renounce their claims to the Swedish throne.

Oh, how our histories are so intertwined...

------------------
*************************
"...über den Bergen sind auch Leute..."

 

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Vrylakas:

Thanks for the link to the scenario; I'll give it a try. Yes, Polish peasant revolts played a role in the ousting of the Swedes (but not the Russians or Tartars; that was the regular forces).

Sorry, yes your right <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0>

The Poland of 1660 was a mere shadow of the Poland of 1560, largely because the Jagiellonian dynasty had lapsed and the nobility (szlachta) had taken over, electing weak kings. In fact, when the Deluge wars started there was a Swedish dynasty sitting on the Polish-Lithuanian throne, the Catholic half of the Vasas (Polish: Waza). The treaty that ended the Deluge wars between Poland and Sweden forced the Catholic (Polish) Vasas to renounce their claims to the Swedish throne.
Oh, how our histories are so intertwined...
[/B]

<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/redface.gif" border=0> I just remembered one thing though, i forgot to mention the Polish claims to the Swedish throne in my scenario <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/redface.gif" border=0>
This was one of the reasons for the war (actually I think it was the official reason for Swedens invassion, even though territorial gain was one the real reason).
If you play the scenario as the Swedish and think that the Polish are too easy, wait untill you take Krakow, remember what ignited the first of the revolts?
Well it works here too, and I would be very suprised if someone manage to conquer all of Poland and just keeping what you've got is unlikely too (or is supposed to be annyway).

[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited June 13, 2001).]

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

Originally posted by Henrik:

[about terrains] You can insert values, but the game will ignore them <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif" border=0>

This might be a compatibility issue. Which version of the game do you have? I suppose MGE. I changed the terrain defences in my scenario "Hammer.." and this seemed to work out right. It was a huge benefit for me to hide away in the forests, playing the Anglo-Saxons throwing out the Vikings, due to the extra defence there. -Movement costs seemed quite right too! -Lowering the movement cost of roads etc. works out for sure, this I am certain about.

Could it be an issue with your ingame editor conflicting with the rules.txt?

-Anyway, I am going to test this out again thoroughly, both with the classic version and MGE. -I base most of my strategy layout based on these things, so this is a huge tragedy if it holds true will all versions of the game.

 

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Morten Blaabjerg:
This might be a compatibility issue. Which version of the game do you have? I suppose MGE. I changed the terrain defences in my scenario "Hammer.." and this seemed to work out right. It was a huge benefit for me to hide away in the forests, playing the Anglo-Saxons throwing out the Vikings, due to the extra defence there. -Movement costs seemed quite right too! -Lowering the movement cost of roads etc. works out for sure, this I am certain about.

Could it be an issue with your ingame editor conflicting with the rules.txt?

-Anyway, I am going to test this out again thoroughly, both with the classic version and MGE. -I base most of my strategy layout based on these things, so this is a huge tragedy if it holds true will all versions of the game.

I was talking about the rescourses in the terrian (like coal in the standard game), for them you can insert alternate movement and defence values but the game will use the values of the basic terrain (in this case hills) instead of these values.

 

[Ptolemy]

Ahm, I was wondering of the governments...
Which do you think you will use? I suggest Feudalism (Where it is not a senate but a Reichscouncil), Absolutism, Christian Fundamentalism (Crusader units could be a special unit here if you could do that), maybe some kind of Arabian government for the OSmans and abasids empire, remember they have never really gotted their dividation of church and state. Maybe some kind of Ortodox government or Lutheranian government.

I mean that Morten has written that all the civs should be there from the start, but at 700 after christ there wasn't so many of the countries "made", there should be dominating later on. The prespanish kingdom was just overrun by the arabs. If they're going to be a part of the game, the spanish, they should start with only one humble city in Navarra.

The papal state was there, the byzantian empire was there, the arab empire, the frankish empire, and some few anglo-british tribes had made there one states. Wessex, Mercia and Essex and all of them. Here's another thing I would like to add: It is amazing that the viking invasion of England actually united these countries in to a single english kingdom which William the Conquerror's dynasty should rule for a long time.

ABout Scandinavia. The danish kingdom should be the strongest. From 1000-1500 the danes were the dominating power in the North. This balance changed when the swedes conquered Finland from 1550 to 1814 the swedes were the dominating. THere for I suggest If you only need one scandinavian country this shoul either be called the danes or the vikings.

MY SUGGESTIONS TO CIV'S:
Arabs
Byzantians,
Franks,
Anglo-britains
Papal state
Poles
A sort of Balkanstate ( A kind of pre-Austria-Hungary) where the serbs, hungarians and austrians should be together, or at least the serbs and the hungarians
Holy Roman Empire (Shall the dividation of the HRE be included in this mod-pack?)
A Northitalian (Maybe called the Medecinians??) state which could provide science and start the Renaissance

Morten, could you make a list over possible civ's and possible wonders to this Topic?? IT would be nice!

This is just thougts from my mind
Ptolemy

 

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Ptolemy:
Absolutism

Isnt it a little early for Absolutism? The scenario suposedly ends in 1492...

Although many dreamt of Absolutism I don't think it was achieved untill later on.

ABout Scandinavia. The danish kingdom should be the strongest. From 1000-1500 the danes were the dominating power in the North. This balance changed when the swedes conquered Finland from 1550 to 1814 the swedes were the dominating.

Correction:
Finland was conquered by sweden in the 12th century.
Swedish Crusaders "converted" it and made it part of Sweden.
Swedens rise to power was in around 1500 (I would say 1520) but for other reasons.

THere for I suggest If you only need one scandinavian country this shoul either be called the danes or the vikings.

I would sugest Vikings and make one Swedish city up in the Mälare viking (the only swedish vikings that actually existed lived in that region, still our nationalists think that Swedes=Vikings in the past <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif" border=0> )

A sort of Balkanstate ( A kind of pre-Austria-Hungary) where the serbs, hungarians and austrians should be together, or at least the serbs and the hungarians

Austria shouldn't be part of this one.

[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited June 14, 2001).]

 

[Henrik]

Oh and have you thought about using the "continents" built into civ for increased trade bonuses for certain areas (there doesn't need to be water separating the continents as long as the program is convinced that it knows where they are).
This can also be used to some extent to manipulate AI expansion...

 

[Henrik]

And about governments;
In my scenario I will use them to reflect the different schisms in the cristhian church, there will be:

• Cristhian Monarchy (monarchy)
• Catholic Monarchy (comunnism, this symbolises the counter reformed nations, the corruption is adjusted slightly and all infiltrators and ambassadors (diplos and spies) will be veterans due to the fact that catholic papal envoys and such allways where used as good spies)
• Protestant Monarchy (Republic, later on there will be centers of administration whit very high upkeep that will function as police stations and thus eliminate unhappiness from millitary units being away from cities, due to the high upkeep these will only be built in large cities (unless you feel like ruining your economy) and symbolisis the growing bureocracy of the new states. Womens suffrage will be an extremly usefull wonder in my scenario for protestant nations).
• Catholic Commonwealth (given to the polish when the right year comes around(or when they achieve something, I have not decided yet) the hussar will function as the fanatic unit and the polish will be very powerfull indeed for a while, later they will probably lag behind to to lack of research though(a human player might not stay in comonwealth forever)).
• Protestant Republic (Democracy, given to English and Dutch, can also be aquired by a third nation if they have built Geheime Kabinetts-Kanzlei(great library))

You can ofcourse not use the same ones since that wouldn''t be accurate to the time period, but perhaps something simmilar.
Government changing will be allowed in my scenario and large nations (like the habsburgs and France) <u>are</u> more likely to pick catholisism due to the free support.

Playtesting will show if this actually works but this is how I intend to do it.

 

[Ptolemy]

I am sorry, Henrik, with the conquest of Finland, as Morten said, danish history education is really lousy and I haven't really read the swedish history.

I think also we could start talking about units here. Should there be special units for some civ's? Which and to who?

I don't know when Austria was "founded", and I'm not quite sure if they should have their own civ. Some will think they should be a civ.

Wonders: Should the normally ancient wonders be in the scenario?? Should the Kaabah be a wonder? It could make the arabs being able to build a special arab unit and it could also increase trade in town? WHat about a wonder called Venice's Harbor? VEnice was one of the greatest trading places in EUrope in the meddieval age. This wonder could also be called Hanseatic League. Also there was a really great hungarian king, I think his name was Matthyas or something like that, he built a beautiful castle this could be a wonder which would allow Absolutism. BEcause Mathyas was able to build it because that he was an absolut king. I'll find out what this king was named and what the castle's name is.

Absolutism: I am not sure but in the osman and russian empire, at least in the start, they had absolut leaders. I also think that the hungarians had and the franks in the start.
Even if none of these had, this could be the final goal for a leader to achieve. Perhaps via the wonder I've talked about earlier. Perhaps something else.

Science: I'd like to know what Morten has thought about this.

Banks. The first banks was built in Italy in the end of the meddieval age. SHould these banks have a place in the scenario or should this belong to the Renaissance.

Peace, love & harmony
Ptolemy

 

[Henrik]

Originally posted by Ptolemy:
I am sorry, Henrik, with the conquest of Finland, as Morten said, danish history education is really lousy and I haven't really read the swedish history.

I don't know that much about Danish history either so its even

I think also we could start talking about units here. Should there be special units for some civ's? Which and to who?

Charlamange? (not sure when he lived though, I am not that good at the early middle ages).

I don't know when Austria was "founded", and I'm not quite sure if they should have their own civ. Some will think they should be a civ.

I wasn't saying that they should get thier own civ (i don't know that much about early Austria) but they shouldn't be grouped together whit the Hungarians, Transylvanians, etc, etc.

Also there was a really great hungarian king, I think his name was Matthyas or something like that, he built a beautiful castle this could be a wonder which would allow Absolutism. BEcause Mathyas was able to build it because that he was an absolut king. I'll find out what this king was named and what the castle's name is.

This sounds really interesting, I'd love to find out more.

Absolutism: I am not sure but in the osman and russian empire, at least in the start, they had absolut leaders. I also think that the hungarians had and the franks in the start.
Even if none of these had, this could be the final goal for a leader to achieve. Perhaps via the wonder I've talked about earlier. Perhaps something else.

I think this is an excelent idea (as an end game wonder). But I doubt that the ones that was "absolute in the begining" really was absolute, many rulers could basically decide whatever they wanted to (I seem to recal someone who tried to decide what cloths thier subjects would be allowed to wear. He died believing that everyone obeyed his orders, never leaving his castle, this person would be "absolute" in his mind but not in reality, I don't know if this story is true but it ilustrates pretty well how medieval monarchies worked) but nobody outside thier royal chambers would care.

Science: I'd like to know what Morten has thought about this.

So would I.
I am using a little different approach to it myself (but since I feel all this talk about my own project is begining to sound like boasting I will kepp quite

Banks. The first banks was built in Italy in the end of the meddieval age. SHould these banks have a place in the scenario or should this belong to the Renaissance.

The ideal thing would be to be able to place a few of these improvements in some cities at the right time, since this isn't possible I would sugest a wonder (not necesarily an economic wonder).


[This message has been edited by Henrik (edited June 14, 2001).]

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

HENRIK:
I was talking about the rescourses in the terrian (like coal in the standard game)

-Ah! Now I understand. -I haven't exactly noticed it in the game, as I have assigned the same bonuses to these squares. I guess you're right. This doesn't matter so much to me, though.

HENRIK:
Oh and have you thought about using the "continents" built into civ for increased trade bonuses for certain areas (there doesn't need to be water separating the continents as long as the program is convinced that it knows where they are). This can also be used to some extent to manipulate AI expansion...

Interesting! Please give me something further on this! I don't get exactly what you're pointing to, but this sounds definitely worth getting a little into.

PTOLEMY:
Ahm, I was wondering of the governments...

There'll be free choice of government form, but the techs required will be divided into "epochs" where you will need the concluding tech to proceed to the next epoch. The only tribe who will be ahead in techs to begin with is the arab tribe, so you'll need first to develop/trade techs within the "dark age", to proceed to feudalism, and/or get the crusades going to get advanced techs from the next epochs.

epoch 1 (all dark age techs) --> epoch 2 (feudal techs) --> epoch 3 (high medieval techs) --> etc.

This is a very useful way of also setting up the units, because they will be connected to specific techs within each epoch -this makes it possible to control which units will appear approximately when, in a game.

Concerning government types, I have the following until further.

Tribal Kingdom (despotism)
Monarchy (monarchy)
Feudalism (communism)
Trade League (fundamentalism)
Feudal Empire (republic)
Holy Empire (democracy).

All these will be adjusted, as to support for units etc. to fit the changing circumstances. I still have some consideration. Fundamentalism is a very warfit governmental form, so this might be changed. But fundy's tend also to get very very rich. I might reconsider something here.

PTOLEMY:
Absolutism: I am not sure but in the osman and russian empire, at least in the start, they had absolut leaders. I also think that the hungarians had and the franks in the start.

There's no kind of absolutism in western Europe before the 17th century. It is true that the eastern parts of Europe to at large degree had "absolute"-like rulers way down from the middle ages, which was partly inherited from the harsh rule imposed by the many invaders, including the mongols. But the feudal structure of western Europe seemed to lay quite a damper on the power of individual kings. There were great rulers like Charlemagne and Barbarossa and others. But their power consisted in their ability to unite the landbased nobility under their rule, by force, allegiance or tradition. When they died, their empires often split into fractions, and wars between the different noble families was not uncommon. So medieval rulers in general (in western Europe) did not possess absolute power. They had to ask the nobles. Or gain the power to crush them, and get them into the fold.
Often the church would be a powerful ally to the kings, in these disputes.

PTOLEMY:
I think also we could start talking about units here. Should there be special units for some civ's? Which and to who?

Any ideas? I'd like also to hear ideas for objectives for the different tribes.

PTOLEMY:
I mean that Morten has written that all the civs should be there from the start, but at 700 after christ there wasn't so many of the countries "made", there should be dominating later on.

-ABOUT tribes. Until further I have settled for the following tribes. (I know I changed my mind before, so I might do it again...) The tribes and their primary playing objectives.

-Franks
-carve out charlemagnes empire and participate in the crusades, in the middle east and in spain
-Anglo-Saxons
-fight the danes/northmen, unite the isles and fight the 100 years war against the french
-Holy Romans
-unite the fragments of central Europe to a strong christian empire to face the muslim threat
-Danes/Northmen
-carve out a nordic empire, will have powerful ships, to sail up the rivers as far as Byzantium etc.
-Spaniards
-struggle against the arabs and franks to carve out the late medieval glory of spain, and send off Columbus
-Infidels
-diverse arab tribes united under one hat. They NEED to be a player tribe to simulate the tech gaining from the middle east. they have one goal : keep Jerusalem and Constantinople, and conquer as much of Europe as possible.
-Inferiors
-I don't think the Byzantines can be referred to as "inferior", but the inferiors will contain most of the "civilized" tribes spread unevenly around, poles, serbs, byzantines etc. I might come up with another concept, but this is it until further.
-Raging Hordes
-BARB's with strong horsemounted units invading from the steppes of Asia, featuring Djengis Khan and Attila the Hun (in reverse order)

The way I want to simulate the rise of different kingdoms etc, is by creating "kings" units, upon specific player actions, there could very well be a king in every other major city. The tribes will be represented diplomacy-wise by highly influential clerical figures or grey eminences, who will wander through time, as their kings die and are replaced by others. This is a little concept to simulate the everlasting wheel of power, which I think will be quite nice. Kings and leaders are not nearly as important as the concept of power.

PTOLEMY:
Wonders: Should the normally ancient wonders be in the scenario?? Should the Kaabah be a wonder? It could make the arabs being able to build a special arab unit and it could also increase trade in town? WHat about a wonder called Venice's Harbor?

I haven't thought about this in such great detail. I will grab whatever wonders I need to characterize the tribes, and give them benefits and advantages etc. This won't be an objective scenario, so most wonders should be buildable upon discovering certain techs. Most preplaced wonders will be in Jerusalem, and the important middle eastern cities, to really get the crusades going. -I have thought about Venice. I know one thing, the city should have growth and trade potential.

-Otherwise, all city improvements and wonders, units etc. will be altered, and used for sinister purposes, to tweak the game mechanics in whatever way I need. I'd like to hear ideas for these! I will probably use many of the ideas incorporated into my viking scenario. RR's will be Royal Highways, and possible with the better roadbuilding and infrastructure of later 14th and 15th century centralized medieval times. I will include musketeers units, pirates, the revolution of gunpowder and cannonballs. Banks will be in it, but probably renamed and follow other specific techs, according to need. There should be at least one city improvement of each kind (economic, happy, scientific) within each "epoch", maybe more if circumstances permit. There should also be both defensive and offensive units available in all "epochs".

The final epoch will be the renaissance, and so these times will be included to some degree, including the beginning of the age of exploration etc.

-Quite long posts in this thread! Hope I don't bore you to death!
Keep up your ideas coming!

Yours Truly,
Morten

[This message has been edited by Morten Blaabjerg (edited June 14, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Morten Blaabjerg (edited June 14, 2001).]