Playable Byzantines in RFC 600AD

[TDK]

The Romans would be much more appropriate, not only because Justinian is their leader throughout the timeframe of this mod. Greek UP doesn't make sense; the Byzantines didn't have particularly more great people than any comparable civilization. Greek settler map/stability map is probably necessary, though, otherwise Byzantium would collapse right away from not holding Italy. Cairo should be Arab in 610, but why not just start in 600?

I'm just making a scenario, not a mod(I don't know how to program), which means I'm not changing anything in Rhye's 600AD files.

1) Justinian is the leader in this scenario already.

2)I agree the UP doesn't make that much sense, but one could argue that while other parts of euro-mediterranean lay in darkness, Byzantium was the largest and most civilized metropol around.

3)Yes, I've heard though that greeks are hard enough already regarding stability, which fits in well with historical Byzantium.

4)600AD there are hardcoded events in Rhye's mod that prevents a spawn. I could just change the turntimer so it looks like 600AD

 

[star15389]

Oh. Well, good work then.

 

[mikebert]

I started as the Romans, settled North Africa and took out Carthage. I then stayed in Italy during the barbarian invasions, with the Alps shielding you defense is easy. Then as soon as the Germans appeared, I took out Greece and founded a city in modern Serbia. I needed that to ensure a land connection between Italy and Rome, but if you found one there before the Germans appear the city flips to them.

I founded Constantinople and abut this time Persia offered to become my vassal. They were in the direction I was going so I accepted, and immediate fell into war with the Arabs who were mauling the Persians. So I marched down and captured Babylon and Jerusalem and then made peace with the Arabs.

I built up Babylon for a while until it flipped to the Persians, but that was OK because Iraq wasn't part of the Roman Empire for more than a few years and losing it probably enhanced stability a bit.

I carefully left Turkey city free so as to accomodate the Turks when they arrive in 1280. Mean while I conquered Eqypt, which was independent, the Pharonic state having collapsed same centuries earlier. When the Turks arrived I made nice with them while I built up my forces. The very turn before I was going to attack, they very conveniently declared war on me and so I happily took them out.

I ws pretty shaky then so I spend some time building up by economy to get stable. At this point my territory was roughly the same as what the Byzantine empire had at its height under Justinian.

My goals at this time was to extinguish Islam as much as possible. I was unable to do this as things now started to go downhill. There was the first international conference and the Germans demanded my Serbian city. I refused and I had war with the Germans. I wiped out their civilization, thinking this would be an object lesson. Nope, the very next conference France and Spain demanded cities and I found myself at war with France, Spain, Russia, and the Vikings.

I had build a wall of infantrymen to hold off the Western allies (they did not even have cavalry yet) while I bloodied the Russians a bit. I didn't take any of their cities as that would be bad for stability. I figured since they hadn't asked for anything they would agree to peace if I just smash a few of their armies. I did so and they made peace. And with the Russians out, the Vikings agreed to make peace. The French and Spanish of course would not even talk.

So I captured Paris and collapsed France. Spain *still* would not make peace, even when all alone. I captured two of their cities and was moving against the last when a new conference came up. When the first warning came up I send some forces to what I feared would soon be my Eastern front.

This time everybody wanted a piece of me. Portage wanted Madrid, which I had just captured. I let them have it. Russia wanted one of my Turkish cities, I let them have it. Then the Vikings wanted Berlin! That was the last straw and so now I am at war with the Russians, Vikings, and Portuguese, as well as with Spain (still).

It's all over now. I've been in collapse mode for what seems like ages, its only a matter of time before my empire breaks up. While I hold together I will try to hold off the Russians while I finish off the Spanish and Portuguese.

I have avoided razing cities because I think the AI doesn't like civs who do this. Foreign is the only category on which I have 4 stars. Economy, normally my strong suit, is currently at two stars partly because I am in a great depression and partly because I am fighting all these wars. I cannot help having a low rating with expansion as I am so big. Perhaps I should have given up Berlin.

Question: Does razing cities affect stability negatively? If not, the easiest way to get Catherine to back off is to destroy one of her cities. I need peace.

Note: I am able to destroy cities at will (although this still takes time) because I am way ahead in tech. I have artillery and infantrymen, they often still have longbowmen guarding their cities.

 

[mikebert]

I was thinking that at the end of the day the byzantines are pretty much an "evolution" of the roman empire.
Instead of working against odds to build a full Civ maybe it will be easier to start a 3000BC game as Rome and use worldbuilder constantly to steer history in the "correct direction" until you have a decent reproduction of byzantine empire at (lets say) 500AD.

Changing UHV is not a problem (once there is agreement about what they are).

The main issue is that the stability map will match rome and not, strictly speaking, the byzantines.
Anyway that should add a challenge due to constant stability issues.

What is needed is somebody with:
- time to play
- historical knowledge to rebuild the correct scenario

That works (see my previous post). You don't get the Byzantine neutral civ as it is in the 600 AD start, but that would not work. In actual history, the Arabs took most of the Byzantine empire in less than a century, a task that would take at least 600 years in RFC. So you cannot start out with the 600 AD neutral Byzantine empire as your starting position. If you play as Rome you can have Justinian's empire by 1500 AD, perhaps earlier I've only done one game as the Byzantines, and I'm not finished yet.

After then however, you are likely to get sucked into European Great power politics.

I find this mod simply amazing. One can actually play history, not the exact dates, but the major thrusts, and they can turn out sort of like things really did, only with interesting twists. For example, in my Justinian game, France acted as Spain, conquering the Aztecs and Inca and forming the largest American empire. After I took out France I checked and found that the Japanese were now players in America, Fascinating.

I hate how slow it plays. Will a video card speed it up or am I doomed to ending games at around 1800 when I reach an unplayable speed? As it is, I read between turns while I wait for the computer to finish.

 

[Arkaeyn]

Question: Does razing cities affect stability negatively? If not, the easiest way to get Catherine to back off is to destroy one of her cities. I need peace.

If you're going to capture the city anyway, make the capture then offer the city in exchange for peace. That's the easiest way, though somewhat counterintuitive.

 

[blizzrd]

I hate how slow it plays. Will a video card speed it up or am I doomed to ending games at around 1800 when I reach an unplayable speed? As it is, I read between turns while I wait for the computer to finish.

Yes, depending on your PC specs the most likely drag is a lack of video memory. I had your exact problem for more than 12 months while I was playing RFC exclusively - then I upgraded my PC and I have never looked back since (still playing RFC of course).

 

[blizzrd]

Question: Does razing cities affect stability negatively?

Yes. It think it actually leaves a permanent minus on your overall stability.

If not, the easiest way to get Catherine to back off is to destroy one of her cities. I need peace.

Have you managed to make any civs capitulate (become your vassal)? This is the easiest and most beneficial (for stability) way to win a war. You simply capture some of their cities (usually about half will do) and before they collapse, you accept peace via capitulation. Then you liberate their former cities to them, giving both you and your new vassal a big stability boost.

 

[musicfreak]

I hate how slow it plays. Will a video card speed it up or am I doomed to ending games at around 1800 when I reach an unplayable speed? As it is, I read between turns while I wait for the computer to finish.

As long as you're not trying to play with all settings on high with a crappy video card, I wouldn't waste the money on it. Your processor is more likely to the be cause of the slow speed (although the ultimate cause is just RFC in itself, but you can't really do much about that).

 

[blizzrd]

As long as you're not trying to play with all settings on high with a crappy video card, I wouldn't waste the money on it. Your processor is more likely to the be cause of the slow speed (although the ultimate cause is just RFC in itself, but you can't really do much about that).

I disagree that the processor is more likely to be the cause of slowness from my own personal experience.

 

[wolfigor]

I disagree that the processor is more likely to be the cause of slowness from my own personal experience.

Everything influence the performances in a game like CIV4... I can tell the difference because between work and home computers (all my machines mount CIV by default) I have tested CIV on at least 6 different configurations (4 laptops and 2 desktop)

Graphic card mostly influences the smoothness of play during your turn.
CPU influence mostly the time between turns
RAM memory influences both

1. Graphic card
a better graphic card with large dedicated memory makes the difference when you run CIV at higer resolution.
Obviously with same resolution and graphical detail a better graphic card will give you a smoother experience.
With larger number of units in play (can happen at several points in the game) you'll need a better graphic card to handle all the animations (especially when zooming out).
With a larger map, the dedicated memory buil-in the card will ensure smoother scrolling (more buffering around the visible area of the map).
Some video cards have problems with CIV.
On my travelling work laptop (an horrible Lenovo X200s) I get "holes" in the UI!
very annoying but working. On my Vaio, it's a smooth as silk (even when I play on a 1920x1080 resolution on a HD TV).
If you have one of those cards using the computer memory as graphic memory (typical in cheaper laptops) you are gone and you'll have a hellish experience.

2. Computer memory
I noticed that 1GB of RAM is the very minimum you must have to have a decent game play, especially in later ages when you get a lot of units, cities, and civs in play.
2GB of RAM are a much better deal if you want to play long and prosper.
Over this thrashold there is no big gain in putting in more RAM

3. CPU
This is a huge difference especially in the time to be spent between turns, but also influence the smoothness of play during the turn (but the graphic card have a larger influence in that).
Here again there is a thrashold.
under the trashold you can be sure you will have huge problems.
over the trashold you can rest a bit safer.
For my experience moving from 1core to dual core makes the trick.
Any dual core seems enough runs smooth.


In conclusion if you want to play well (or better have a smooth experience with limited frustration of waiting) you need to have all three components over a certain trashold.
For example there is no point of having a super dupper CPU when you have only half a GB of ram.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I noticed that 1GB of RAM is the very minimum you must have to have a decent game play, especially in later ages when you get a lot of units, cities, and civs in play.

I have only 512 MB. Mind you, everything else on my PC is fairly OK, so the wait time is still passable in the endgame.

 

[wolfigor]

I have only 512 MB. Mind you, everything else on my PC is fairly OK, so the wait time is still passable in the endgame.

ram doesn't seem to influence waiting time a lot.
I notices that influence the "smoothness" of gameplay (during your turn to understand) with larger maps and/or higher screen resolution and/or zoom out.

 

[Arkaeyn]

I just went from one gig of ram to two and have noticed some improvements in waiting between turns, but not enough that I can play on Huge maps. Guess I should have looked into processors.

 

[musicfreak]

I disagree that the processor is more likely to be the cause of slowness from my own personal experience.

Well I assumed that he was talking about wait in between turns, not the smoothness of the game. But in that case, yes, a better graphics card would be of more benefit than a processor.

EDIT: Re-read his post; he was talking about wait in between turns. A better graphics card can't do anything for that.

 

[TDK]

Back to topic. I finally had time to finish the Byzantine scenario.

Leader: Justinian I
Civilization: Byzantine Empire
Unique Building: Hippodrome
Unique Unit: Cataphract
Unique Power: 150% Great Person birth rate until the end of the Middle Ages
Start date: 610AD
Description: Can you hold on to your North African possessions in the face of Bedouin incursions, while preparing for invasion from the Turkish tribes? Will you retain control of Jerusalem and secure your rightful position as leader of all Christendom?

You get the exact start from Rhye's 600AD mod, except you start 1 turn later and the Arab armies have been augmented somewhat. Stability and settler map borrowed from the Greeks.

Suggested UHV conditions:
1. Control Jerusalem in 1400AD.
2. Re-unify Christianity by being the elected Apostolic Palace resident in 1500AD.
3. Have the biggest economy(GNP) by 1700AD.

Please post suggestions and comments.

I would also like to see some cultural, domination and conquest victories please

 

[Richard Zorge]

Thank you for this scenario, it is very interesting gameplay. However, there is one minor issue - it is impossible to build settlers as Byzantine.

 

[Metal Alloy Man]

I'm pretty sure there's a fix for that somewhere in this thread.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It's in the CivilizationInfos.xml.

 

[TDK]

It's in the CivilizationInfos.xml

Okay, but wouldn't that make it a mod instead of a scenario?

What can be changed easily in that way?:
-Buildable settlers.
-The description with the XXX's when chosing Byzantine Empire?
-Unique Power?
-What else?

I have never tried programming before, so everyone should feel free to implement these small changes into a mod.

So far I've played one game to 1000AD. I find the Byzantines very entertaining, opening the ancient trade routes to China and controlling the Apostolic Palace while watching new empires rise and fall.

TDK

 

[mikebert]

I finished my Byzantine game. Eliminated Russia, Spain, Portugal to add to France, Germany and Turkey. Then I started falling apart. Turkey broke off as a revolution as did Cairo. I reconquered Cairo (by this time I had tanks to their musketmen and longbowmen). I started to reconquer Turkey but I was limited by slow movement through the mountains. I reconquered Cairo, then France broke away, I reconquered them in two turns. Then I finshed off the Turks destroying their excess cities so they could not come back. Just as I conquered their last city they came back the next turn, and so I threw in the towel.

I believe that a skilled player can play as the Romans and direct them into an effective Byzantine Empire. I nearly succeeded and I am a newbie at RFC. You of course cannot win the computer victory, but you can keep tabs yourself. For goal #3 I suggest to achieve Justinian's dream of reconquering the Empire as it stood in AD 395--less Britain. That is, control Spain, France, North Africa, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Jerusalem, and Eqypt--and to hold all these territories with none of your cities in unrest for one turn.

The other two goals would be subgoals of this. Goal #2 might be to achieve what Justinian actually achieved: control Italy, Greece, Turkey, Jerusalem, and North Africa.

Goal #1 is to hold North Africa, Italy and Greece by 600 AD, when the Arabs arrive.

In my game I achieved goal #2, but not #1. Goal #1 seems to me to be easier than the Roman goal, of conquering North Africa, Spain, Gaul and Britain by AD 450. I've never achieved the Roman goal, but I'll bet folks here have, so this should be doable. #2 is easy, as I managed to do it. Goal #3 should be doable, I had all the territories conquered, in my game but I kept having revolts, which kept me from having even a single turn of no unrest.

I suspect that had I accomplished #1, I could have done #3, because I would have more time for economic development. The key is to complete the industrial revolution and so move to a post-industrial economy. That is, you move from an emphasis on production to an emphasis on commerce. For example, as soon as you develop chemistry in the early years of the industrial revolution, grasslands with workshops can generate up to four hammers plus one food. Shifting to cottages can produce up to five commerce and two food.

Suppose you have an empire of 10 cities and on that land you have 12 grassland tiles with workshops. Shifting from industrial to post industrial can convert 48 hammers into 60 commerce. This grows your GDP. Also, you increase your food production by 12, allowing you to add six people, who could be merchants, growing GDP further.