1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Introducing: Rhye's of Russia (historical scenario)

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall Modmods' started by Baldyr, Dec 6, 2009.

  1. Baldyr

    Baldyr "Hit It"

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,530
    Location:
    Sweden
    Since I like to re-enact the history of Russia in RFC I've always been prodding my games in the World Builder. Now I'm looking to mod in some of my favorite changes and add some alterations to the mod itself. I'm not at all familiar with Python so there will only be minor changes in this regard. (Unless someone else can help me out with more advanced stuff, like events or UHV:s.)

    This work is more and more beginning to look like a historical scenario. I'm considering a one (or two or tree) unit spawn only for the Russian (human) player, either tasked with conquering Kiev or flipping an existing Independent city at the first turn. This is my take on the earliest centuries of Russian history:

    Spoiler :
    600 AD (#181): Eastern Slavs are colonizing the forested vistas of Belarus and Ukraine. They have a nomadic lifestyle and only around the river Dnepr in the south have tribes (intermixed with nomadic tribes of the steppes) begun to settle down more permanently.

    700-860 AD (#191-207): The northern Slavic tribes are settling down along the rivers. Varangian (Norse) traders and adventurers enter the Lodoga area and found settlements that will become Staraya Ladoga, Gnezdovo and Novgorod. This society is sometimes (controversially) referred to as the Rus' Khaganate.

    860 AD (#207): Varangian rulers take the reigns of power in Holmgård (Novgorod, at this point mostly a fortress). Slavic tribes besiege Constantinople in an effort to open up trade routes.

    882 AD (#209): The Varangian ruling class (the Rurikids) makes Kiev their headquarters, thus creating the realm of Kievan Rus'. Proposed starting year for scenario (as the Russians).

    907 AD (#212): Kievan Rus' attack Constantinople but fail to defeat the Byzantines.

    911 AD (#212): Kievan Rus' enter a peace and trade agreement with Byzantium. Novgorod is annexed into the expanding Kievan Rus' state. Alternative starting year for scenario.

    965-969 (#217): Kievan Rus' conquer and plunder the Khazar Khaganate (an ally of Byzantium) in the northern Caucasus.

    980-1054 AD (#218-226): Golden age of Kievan Rus'. First written code of laws in Russian history. Territorial expansion (colonization) takes place in the forested north east - the south is blocked by the nomadic peoples of the steppes (now without the Khazars as a buffer).

    1055-1220 AD (#227-242): Kievan Rus' in steady decline with civil wars and fragmentation due to the lack of a proper hereditary monarchy.

    1221 AD (#243): Mongol exploratory raid enter the steppes south east of Russia through the Caucasus.

    1236-1240 AD (#245): Second Mongol wave leave the Kievan Rus', the native Volga Bulgars (near the Urals) and what remains of the Khazars in ruins. Only the old varangian stronghold of Novgorod survives the onslaught and becomes the center of Russia for the coming centuries.

    From this time line one can get a host of information for the scenario at hand. First and foremost the forests of Russia are not empty. There could both be Viking (varangian) and Independent cities at the start of the scenario. The rest of the (numerous) Slavic settlements would be Cottages/Hamlets/Villages/Towns - and in the case of Novgorod - possibly just a Fort improvement. Also, the ancient Greek colony of Cherson should be in Byzantian hands, and the Khazar Khaganate (in the south east) would be represented by their old capital of Itil/Atil (on the spot where Astrachan will later be built) and their new fortified capital of Sarkel by the Donu river. The Volga Bulgars would be presented by the Independet (or Native) city of Bolghar. The different native peoples (Finnic tribes in the north east, Petchegs in the Ukraine, and others) could be represented by Tribal Villages (huts) and unit spawns - or a combination of both. (Later on, there would also have to be the various Siberian peoples - neither Siberia is empty.)

    It should really be possible to have diplomatic relations with Byzantium since the Kievan Rus' based its prosperity on the trade with Byzantium. At the very minimum there should be an open bordes agreement allowing trade routes. Short of making the Byzantines a playable civilization, an open borders treaty would make it impossible to declare war on Byzantium (like what happened 907 AD, above). If an unbreakable open borders agreement is to be implemented at the very start of the scenario, then it would have to start in 911 AD. (Then also Novgorod would be a part of the Kievan Rus' - or it would flip to the Russian player on that turn.) Note that it really isn't necessary to declare war on Byzantium after this point, because this would cancel some very valuable trade routes. How to conquer Byzantian Cherson on the Crimea, then? Well, the culture from Kiev could do the trick, i suppose. (The Kievan Rus' didn't conquer Cherson historically, though.)

    The Kievan Rus' are descendants of the Vikings and should also have open borders with them (also allowing the Vikings to trade with Byzantium). Furthermore the Russians would need Sailing (and Fishing) in order to utilize the historical river trade routes of western Russia. The first tech researched would also be Code of Laws - see the Golden Age above! Note that this Golden Age (980-1054) last for 8 turns! I have toyed with the idea of giving the Russian player a Great General at the start, representing the Rurikid varangian warrior class. If the Russians can get another Great Person by turn #218, it would be possible to replicate this golden age exactly! (Maybe make it possible to capture Great People and place another one in Novgorod?) Or should it be possible to start your first Golden Age with only one Great Person?

    If the scenario is to recreate historical circumstances, the stability of Kievan Rus' should be less than good to start with. Before the Mongol spawn 1195 AD (#241) the stability should already by shaky/collapsing (even with an early golden age - and worse without it!). This would be created by having non-Russian cities on their core areas (Volga Bulgars, Khazars) and by giving the Despotism civic a stability penalty. (The Russians would not start with Monarchy, then.) Another starting civic would be Slavery (not Serfdom at this point in Russian history).

    The Mongol conquest of Russia would have to be recreated in some fashion. I'm currently looking into giving them an enlarged spawn area with additions of cities south east of Russia. (Only these cities flip, not the adjacent tiles.) Additional Mongol Units in Outer Mongolia really don't add any level of threat in European Russia. I could, however, make a few more Native/Independent cities (like Saqsin/Saray) spawn the previous turn - with a host of Keshik units - which then flips to the Mongols. These units would then represent the first wave of the Mongol invasion. How to recreate the second and subsequent waves? (The Keshik unit itself might also have to be given some special abilities to achieve what it's supposed to.)

    One solution would be to fashion the Mongols of the Middle Ages into Barbarians instead, making the Mongols a late game civilization, representing modern day Mongolia. If it weren't for the Great Wall of China it would be easy to simply add massive Barbarian unit spawns in the immediate proximity of Russia - up to a specified date. Maybe they could be Natives instead?

    I'll stop here for the moment, as the things listed above are more than enough for me to chew for the moment, and let you guys give me your input. There is more to come... (Like a redesigned map.)
     
  2. Deon

    Deon Lt. of Mordor

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    2,954
    Location:
    St.Petersburg, Russian Federation
    Are you sure there was a real "mongol" conquest? Actually it could be that mongols had an agreement with russian rulers so they paid them; and the "mongol raiders" were just bandit mercenaries hired from population to act under "mongol" disguise. There are some remaining images and if you look at them many "mongols" have light hair and blue eyes, which partially proves this theory.
    There could be just a clever civic where people had to pay in one way or another and those involved were bathing in gold.

    I even thought about russian-only civic "yoke" which would cause random barbarians mercs to appear but would net a lot of gold and cause population unhappiness.
     
  3. Baldyr

    Baldyr "Hit It"

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,530
    Location:
    Sweden
    No, not sure. I'm not even an amateur historian, so I'm kinda struggling here and any input is valuable.

    Nonetheless, the Russians/Kievan Rus' need to be on the ropes by the time the Mongols appear. Anything that could make this happen helps.

    The scenario will have to be playable though, so what I'm looking for is something really challenging but not totally scripted. The Kievan Rus' could opt to discover Monarchy as their first tech (or trade for it) and get an early grip on stability. Then avoid collapsing under the Mongol onslaught and go on a counter offensive. Thus altering world history by defeating the eastern threat, saving Europe and bringing on a new Russian golden age. The whole business of Moscovy growing in power to finally end the dependency from the Golden Horde in the 15th century wouldn't be necessary. The Khanates of Kazan and Astrachan would never be founded - and so forth.
     
  4. Baldyr

    Baldyr "Hit It"

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,530
    Location:
    Sweden
    I've attached my work (in progress) on the new map of the Russian territory. Resources are based on a variety of sources and not yet balanced in any sense of the word. Food resources (and Furs) are located where the main historical settlements would be, but this is a bit hap-hazard at the moment.

    I actually redid the whole thing, keeping only some of the mountain ranges and most of the coastlines intact. Rivers should now be corrected, Marshes added where they should be and high country (Hills) is based on topographical data.

    This, then, will form the basis for my Russia scenario. Feedback?
     

    Attached Files:

  5. corovanrobber

    corovanrobber Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    Germany
    With this map I can't even properly found my own city :lol:

    Krasnoyarsk, Yakutsk and surroundings cannot be founded at all due to tundra, and a couple of major Siberian and Ural cities are rendered useless due to massive marshes. Irkutsk not only cannot be founded on its logical location due to a mountain, but is generally useless built anywhere around there. Kamchatka is blocked by a mountain also - why? You better take back the marsh blocking Sakhalin, since it's an actual island. Why are there deers right on the tile of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, to discourage settling there? Great that you added crabs to northern Kamchatka though, there's a city named Palana, it's the capital of Koryak Okrug of Kamchatka Krai.
    Adding so much grasslands to Kazakhstan isn't a good idea, Kazakhstan is only made up of useless uninhabited steppes, trust me :lol:. Southern European Russia also doesn't deserve so much grasslands, in fact plains were the ideal representation of lands there. Some places even could be represented with desert. I'm not even talking about forests, Far East terribly misses these.

    In short you're adding too much tundra to good lands and too much grass to useless lands.
     
  6. Baldyr

    Baldyr "Hit It"

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,530
    Location:
    Sweden
    First off, thank you for you input. Especially since you're from Russia. I invite all fellow Russian CivFanatics out there to also give me their two cents. And everyone else too, for that matter.

    Secondly, I have to correct you on one key thing though. Namely that you can found cities on Tundra in RFC - as long as the tile is adjacent to water (river or coast). This is the sole reason why I originally felt that the whole thing needed to be redone. The rivers (and the marshes!) were simply not correct in the original map and some cities couldn't be built - or it wasn't possible to build them in an historically accurate location (Vorkuta, Norilsk, Surgut and Omsk comes to mind).

    You do of course have several perfectly valid points also, and they are being taken into consideration. Irkutsk and the entire Lake Baikal region is one of my "problem areas" and needs more work. Good call on Sakhalin - I'll look what can be done there. What exactly is wrong with Far East in regard to vegetation? (Otherwise I'm really into covering everything with forest at start - it will inevitably be chopped down and Russia is also rich on natural resources - like timber.)

    As to the amount of and placement of Tundra and Grasslands, I really need to explain my modus operandi in more detail before your comments can be of any real help to me. (And I do appreciate your help, so keep the constructive criticism coming.)

    1. I completely flattened all the tiles in roughly the are covered by the former USSR. I also deleted all rivers (and Marshes). I did leave the Peaks that make up the Urals, the coastlines and the lakes, and the border regions - as a reference point.

    2. I redid all the rivers and in tandem reserved plots for all major or otherwise important cities in the USSR area. City placement will always be controversial and there might not be an ultimate solution for every single city (it could be any of up to four different tiles, at its worst), but I made sure that all cities roughly matched each other in longitude and latitude. It needs to be noted that Rhye's map is somewhat skew at places though, like the alignment of Northern and Southern Europe, or the length of Eastern Siberia. This causes city locations not to match satisfactorily and needs to be taken into account when placing cities.

    3. I used a variety of geographical sources to roughly divide the entire area in Tundra and Plains. The basis for Tundra was the presence of permafrost, making the terrain virtually worthless in regard for agriculture. I also added Marshes where I could find wetlands and no roads of major cities in my atlas. (In my version of RFC - and in the Russia scenario - you can develop Marshes so they are not at total waste of space. They will never be very productive, though, but it's possible to build Cottages that grow into Towns - the Marshes of central Siberia are in fact covered in smaller towns in my trusty atlas.)

    4. I located the main agricultural areas of the USSR and made the whole thing into a belt of Grasslands, stretching from the Carpathian Mountains, via the Ukraine and southern Russia, pass the Urals, through northern Kazakhstan and into to Central Siberia (the Tomsk-Krasnojarsk area). Since Plains are practically useless for Farms in Civ4 I opted for Grasslands instead (otherwise the land would have been used for pasture in real life, or so I thought). I also tentatively marked the main city spots in European Russian with Grassland, but I might change it back to Plains.

    5. Next I went through a host of topographical sources in order to find the spots for Hills and Peaks. My guiding principle was that where there's no roads (at least in my atlas, so I guess no major roads) and no habitation, it's a Peak. This is why some of the mountain ranges in the Far East are totally impassable, including the one i Kamtjatka. (You either have to go around them - by sea if need be - or use the mountain passes where the real roads are located. There seems to be no road from Okhotsk to Magadan, by the way, so I made the river land in between into Marshes. Good idea? The Alternative would be a Peak...) The whole topography might be a bit off at places though - this was the hardest bit to execute, I thought.

    6. I trimmed the border areas (like Finland, the Carpatians, the Caucasus, Central Asia and the Far Eastern border areas) and coastlines to more accurately resemble my cartographic sources.

    7. Lastly I used a wide range of sources to map out natural resources. Food resources are mostly there to reflect centers of population in real life, since cities cannot share food. I'm sure I've overlooked something important and at the same time flooded the map with powerful extras. But on the other hand - I intend to make a hard scenario but with great rewards as to great city sites in the Urals and beyond. Siberia is and should be rich in natural resources! (Also, when I play as the Russians I tend to found the USSR, so I'm not getting any of the corporation bonuses either.)

    I guess my main question to anyone who knows is this: Should Grassland only exits in a wide belt from roughly Lvov to the Don river? All other agricultural areas should then be Plains (maybe with some soft spots of Grassland intermixed) with some food bonuses where appropriate?

    And a question specifically to corovanrobber: What is the geography of the Amure area really like? In my atlas it looks mostly mountainous and forested, but I might have misinterpreted it. Please enlighten me!
     
  7. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    9,865
    Bushkov - Fomenko, here we come! :p

    Modern day Mongolia isn't worthy of being represented.
     
  8. Baldyr

    Baldyr "Hit It"

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,530
    Location:
    Sweden
    You are not getting any argument from me there, but in a scenario about Russian history any neighboring country that can be included would be valuable. For flavor, if nothing else. Since I can't mold the Mongols into something entirely different (settler maps and what-not) I'd have to be content with modern day Mongolia.

    If I could choose, though, I'd probably include Poland (Poland-Lithuania). Now Poland has to be represented by another Independent city...:rolleyes:
     
  9. corovanrobber

    corovanrobber Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    Germany
    That be something you should mention in first place, in original RFC cities could only be built by coast, making me misjudge the map.
    Regarding that, looking at the original Earth map (which was then redesigned for RFC) could help in a way. It doesn't have oversized Europe, Japan etc, was interesting for me to see actual proportions.
    That's another change you haven't told in the first post, workable marshes. Permafrost via tundra is interesting though, I always wondered why there's so much tundra in places that could otherwise be plains or more.

    Getting too tired to quote anymore... Plains in north and grassland in south still feel odd for me, I associate plains with arid regions and this map looks inverted in that sense. I see nothing wrong with plains used for farms (they give food & hammers at the same time), just place some wheat there and it should be fine. Kazakhstan is currently more productive than all of Siberia and European Russia, perhaps even anything on the map :lol:
    Peaks in my opinion are in too large amounts now, but let it be so long as they make layout more diverse. Marsh near Magadan is totally accurate, most of lands there are only passable during winter, and snow also creates some problems. The single road existing there only goes between Magadan and Yakutsk.
    The forest, I tend not to chop forests on tundra since RFC tundra does not give anything and forests at least give it a hammer, two if you build a lumbermill. Woodlands I'd add more to the far east, it looks just too flat whilst I've seen many trees there. Finally for the aesthetics matter I'd make the woods more diverse with green trees between borealics.
    That's right! There are many forested hills at least around the river, I've sailed it once.
     
  10. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    9,865
    Poland and Lithuania are indeed worthy of being represented, considering Lithuanian ownership of huge areas of what then was Russia at a point of history, and Russian-Polish rivalry.
     
  11. Baldyr

    Baldyr "Hit It"

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,530
    Location:
    Sweden
    You are absolutely correct, on both accounts. That seems to be a change I did myself a while back, and thought it was a part of the original mod. My mistake!

    Yeah, my bad, also. But there's also a lot of Marshes in the original RFC map, so I never reflected on this. Also note the Marshes in European Russia.

    Ok, I will take your advice and at the very least expand the Plains in the south. I think I got fooled by a land use map of the USSR, where a agricultural belt stretched from Europe to Siberia. But one has to bare in mind that that's modern agriculture (Biology +1:food:), so Plains would be realistic anyway.

    I did however make a point of adding lots of resources to areas like around Karaganda. In original RFC that was a totally useless city location.

    I'm feeling a bit split about the entire Impassable Peaks terrain as a whole in the game. I would be great if units with Hill Defense or Guerrilla promotions could use Peaks. That way you could have very nasty Barbarian spawns in places like Afghanistan or the Caucasus. Of course you'd have to build your own Hills/Guerrilla counter insurgency units to try to fight these (only available to infantry, while these insurgencies have massive defensive bonuses on Peaks). Or something. Either way no terrain should be completely impassable. (Marshes are passable to most melee and gunpowder units in my game, as are Jungles. No heavy equipment, though.)

    Well good, then. This is something I've always been wondering about, and I really never liked the idea of having a Railroad stretch along the coast from Magadan to the Amur.

    Ok, good suggestions. What areas exactly would need more woodland, do you mean? Should I just cover the whole thing (the North East) in Forests?
     
  12. corovanrobber

    corovanrobber Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    Germany
    You could use the wikipedia image of taiga distribution for example. According to it the coast has some more forests.
     
  13. 3Miro

    3Miro Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Knoxville USA
    Baldyr, could you elaborate on your sources for the historical reference. I was not aware of:

    860 AD (#207): Slavic tribes besiege Constantinople in an effort to open up trade routes.

    Which tribes, which leader ... this is somewhat at odds with other events that I have been reading about.

    907 AD (#212): Kievan Rus' attack Constantinople but fail to defeat the Byzantines.

    Are you sure this is Kievan Rus?

    965-969 (#217): Kievan Rus' conquer and plunder the Khazar Khaganate (an ally of Byzantium) in the northern Caucasus.

    Are you sure it is the Khazar Khaganate? I thought those guys were gone long before 965.
     
  14. corovanrobber

    corovanrobber Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2009
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    Germany
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus'–Byzantine_War_(860)
    Again wikipedia! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus'–Byzantine_War_(907)
    They were already dying out, Sviatoslav was who finally destroyed them. (should be mentioned somewhere on wikipedia, too)
     
  15. Baldyr

    Baldyr "Hit It"

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,530
    Location:
    Sweden
    I've mostly based my small stab at a chronology for the Rus' (Kievan nor not) on various historical atlases. But Wikipedia did also breech some gaps, although the sources are somewhat contradictory. (Some sources claim that it was in fact Rurik who conquered Kiev, the year differs also.)

    I'm grateful If any historians (amateur or not) take the time to look at my timeline. Please point out any inaccuracies. I'm mostly interested in establishing a starting date for the scenario, though. Thereafter history will, of course, take an alternative course... The Mongols will appear on schedule, though.
     
  16. 3Miro

    3Miro Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Knoxville USA
    OK this makes some more sense. The campaign of 860 was by sea, otherwise one would wonder how the Kievans would get Constantinople through Bulgaria. During Boris I (852–889) Bulgaria and Byzantium were overall friendly.

    The second campaign makes little sense. In 907 the Byzantines were at war with Tsar Simeon of Bulgaria, who would have taken Constantinople if it wasn't for the lack of navy. An alliance between Simeon and Oleg would have ensured a victory. As stated by wikipedia, the raid of 907 probably never took place, it was just a confusion with the one from 860.

    Svetoslav had a much bigger campaign against Bulgaria then he had against the Kazars. He destroyed the Kazars and almost destroyed Bulgaria.
     
  17. Baldyr

    Baldyr "Hit It"

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,530
    Location:
    Sweden
    I think the best starting date for Kievan Rus' would be 911AD. That way the fighting with Byzantium is done and there already is a peace and trade treaty is in place. There seems to have been further military conflict with Byzantium, though. An Open Borders agreement pretty much makes this impossible. I guess anything would be possible to achieve with events, though, but that's beyond my own capabilities.

    Maybe I could give Byzantium a poor attitude against the Russians/Rus'. That way hostilities could always flame up on en Empire's initiative, even if it's not the same thing. Maybe give Byzantium a strong modifier against anyone not with the same State Religion? That way the Russian player can automatically appease the Empire by converting to Christianity. (As was the case historically.)

    The Khazars, a Byzantine ally, would be represented by Independents and may already be at war with the Rus'. Byzantium shouldn't declare war on them though, so there could either be permanent peace or a Defensive Pact between Byzantium and Independents. If enough turns would pass so that the Russian civ passes into a state of peace with the Independents/Khazars, another state of war could lead into a conflict also with the Empire. (The Open Borders would be lost forever, too.)

    I don't, however, have any idea as how to incorporate Kievan neighbors the Pechenegs (a nomadic people, sometimes allies, sometimes enemies). Again, they would make excellent events! (Is there a good guide for creating events somewhere?) Other nomadic steppe peoples are represented by Barbarian spawns, but I don't think the map would accommodate this when it comes to the Pechenegs. (They pretty much exist in the border regions between the Rus', the Byzantines and the Khazars. A shrinking few tiles on the map.) Also, Pecheneg mercenaries could be incorporated into the Mercenaries system... (That might not be as easy as it seems, though.)

    Any ideas or suggestions as for this subject? (Starting date, relationshiops to neighbors, et cetera.)
     
  18. Baldyr

    Baldyr "Hit It"

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,530
    Location:
    Sweden
    So, now that the Christmas nonsense is over with I thought I'd get to work on this scenario then. I've been charting historical locations (cities/settlements) in Russia and Central Asia, mostly, and come up with a preliminary list. Also see the screen shots for locations.

    Spoiler :
    Novgorod region (year/turn):

    Staraya Ladoga (753AD/#196)
    Novgorod (859AD/#1000)
    Polotsk (862AD/#207)
    Pskov (903AD/#211)

    Kiev region (year/turn):

    Kiev (600AD/#181)
    Gnezdovo/Smolensk (863AD/#207)
    Tjernigov (900AD/#211)
    Pereiaslav-Khmelnytskyi (911AD/#212)
    Turaw (980AD/#219)
    Belgorod (980AD/#219)

    Vladimir-Suzdal region (year/turn):

    Ryazan (800AD/#201)
    Rostov (862AD/#207)
    Belozersk (862AD/#207)
    Murom (862AD/#207)
    Suzdal/Vladimir (1000AD/#221)
    Tver (1135AD/#221)
    Moskva (1147AD/#236)

    Ural region (year/turn):

    Bolghar/Bilär (600AD/#181)
    Kazan (1000AD/#221)
    Saqsin (1000AD/#221)

    Black Sea region (year/turn):

    Atil (600AD/#181)
    Cherson (600AD/#181)
    Tmutarakan (600AD/#181)
    Samandar (600AD/#181)
    Olbia (600AD/#181)
    Sarkel (833AD/#204)

    Eastern Europe (year/turn):

    Gniezno (800AD/#201)
    Tallinn (1150AD/# 236)
    Riga (1158AD/#237)

    Central Asia (all present at 600AD):

    Almalik
    Almaty
    Balasagun
    Kashgar
    Kabul
    Kandahar
    Balkh
    Samarkand
    Merv
    Bukhara
    Konya-Urgench
    Some of these will be cities and the rest (mostly) Towns. Some will be present on the 600AD map at startup, others will spawn later (even Towns, if I can get it to work as intended). Note that most would already be present at the starting turn of #212.

    The dates are usually the earliest historical record or just an rough estimate, and most of these will actually spawn earlier than indicated. This gives me the opportunity to have a nice spread over time (the first 50-60 turns or so). Also, some settlements will exist as Towns (or the like) from start but spawn as cities later on. (Above dates would indicate the transformations, so the speak.) Some Towns around Novgorod/Kiev might be Cottages/Hamlets/Villages at the start of the scenario, and the "transformation date" would then indicate when the improvement is due to blossom into a Town.

    Spawning of Towns and Cities will end shortly after the Mongol invasion, and after that its up to the player to found his own Cities and plant his own Cottages. Hopefully the Russians aren't totally wiped off the map and can start conquering Russia - and thereafter colonizing Siberia.

    I will try to make the Mongols collapse after their initial flareup. I'm hoping to manage this by making them so huge that they simply crumble under their own weight. Probably there will be additional stability penalties for settling outside of your core areas and such. This will also force the player to play the scenario within historical bounds.
     

    Attached Files:

  19. Zagoroth

    Zagoroth Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    552
    I think this is a great idea, I always love playing as Russia and I feel this will make it even more fun. My only issue is that I worry the Towns will only end up become abused. As opposed for them representing real towns and adding flavor to the game, players will end up pillaging them for extra cash to run 100% research.
     
  20. Baldyr

    Baldyr "Hit It"

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    Messages:
    5,530
    Location:
    Sweden
    Sure, I believe you're right. It does add to the flavor nonetheless, since much of the plundering occurred historically. :king:

    I'm not that worried, though. First off it's a trade-off between having those Towns or working them. Both should seem like good options. It adds a real tactical element, whether or not to go for the short term benefit. (You should pillage those Khazar Towns in any case.) Secondly the Russian player will most probably not start with 10-12 some units, with Settlers and Workers and stuff. He may only have one or two units and at the most one city (if he doesn't have to capture that one also). Furthermore, I'm not set on the Techs yet, so he may have less to start with than in regular RFC.

    To summarize, I believe the player will need all the exploits he can get. The trade routes with Byzantium will come to an end shortly, the Mongols might take or raze a few cities and Barbarian spawns will be a real menace. Or so I hope, at least. It will take some balancing to get it right, and in the end some things might have to be altered.
     

Share This Page