RFC Europe Independents

[micbic]

Having seen many messages for Independent cities, I believe it would be better for them to have their own thread, because independent cities are one of the most important aspects of RFC generally.

Current cities

Italy

Milan, Roma, Firenze, Napoli, Catania

Spain

Valencia, Toledo, Barcelona, A Coruna, Pamplona

France

Nantes, Burdigala, Massilia, Tours, Caen, Lyon, Tarbes

Africa

Tunis, Oran

Balkans

Ragusa, Beograd

Germany

Augsburg

Former USSR

Kharkov, Kherson, Rostov

Barbs

Tripolis, Marrakech

Forgot any?
Ideas for additions:

Dubh Linn (Dublin)
Imbir Nish (Inverness)
Prag
Bruxelles
Zurich

Any other ideas welcome

 

[mitsho]

Zurich

normally only a lurker, but rejoining for one small comment. Zurichs importance only starts in the 18th or 19th century to outgrow those of other Swiss towns. Berne, Basel or Geneva were all more important and larger! (chose Basel please, it's been the largest during the middle ages, I don't think it will make such a big difference map tile wise)

m

 

[st.lucifer]

Having seen many messages for Independent cities, I believe it would be better for them to have their own thread, because independent cities are one of the most important aspects of RFC generally.

Current cities

Italy

Milan, Roma, Firenze, Napoli, Catania

Spain

Valencia, Toledo, Barcelona, A Coruna, Pamplona

France

Nantes, Burdigala, Massilia, Tours, Caen, Lyon, Tarbes

Africa

Tunis, Oran

Balkans

Ragusa, Beograd

Germany

Augsburg

Former USSR

Kharkov, Kherson, Rostov

Barbs

Tripolis, Marrakech

Forgot any?
Ideas for additions:

Dubh Linn (Dublin)
Imbir Nish (Inverness)
Prag
Bruxelles
Zurich

Any other ideas welcome

I don't think Tarbes is on the actual list. I've never seen it before - it's more likely that someone built it and it went independent.

Oran isn't, but Alger and Tangier are.

Kharkov, Kherson, and Rostov are currently off. Kherson and Kharkov will be going back on at different times.

For your suggested list:
Dublin and Prague are on the list; the others aren't. As Mitsho said, Zurich's not time-appropriate (although Basel would be), Bruxelles is in the middle of an area always settled by France, Burgundy, or Germany (or all three), and Inverness may be a possibility, but would give us two independent cities in Scotland (Edinburgh being the other). The Norse may settle Inverness on their own.

 

[micbic]

What should be the spawn year for Basle? Perhaps around 900-1000 AD, I don't know.

 

[Verily]

What should be the spawn year for Basle? Perhaps around 900-1000 AD, I don't know.

If Basel is included, it should spawn in 500 AD as "Basilia" and be high on Burgundian conquest priorities.

 

[st.lucifer]

Basel would be sort of tricky to manage. If it's not there from the beginning, it won't spawn because it'll be in the Burgundian cultural zone. If it's in from the beginning, it'll probably flip to Burgundy, which would be fine except for the advantage it would give Burgundy over France. Additionally, the area around Basel is unremarkable for resources (although that could be changed); it wouldn't be a great city to hold in the early game. It is old enough to be included in the 500 start.

 

[micbic]

To get back the advantage from Burgundy, perhaps Rheims should be added and spawn to France.

 

[st.lucifer]

To get back the advantage from Burgundy, perhaps Rheims should be added and spawn to France.

That's a lot of cities to flip to early civs for the start of the game, and leaves very little empty space to settle. I don't think either city should be in.

 

[jessiecat]

That's a lot of cities to flip to early civs for the start of the game, and leaves very little empty space to settle. I don't think either city should be in.

That's very much my concern too. I would not have Warsaw in as an indy either if Poland is spawning at Kracow. The AI needs room to expand. On that note I've got another suggestion. Why don't we change the minimum no. of tiles between cities from 1 to 2? It would stop the AI building a lot of cities all close together and encourage the player to expand more widely. I think the code could be changed fairly easily AFAIK.

 

[donbot]

That's very much my concern too. I would not have Warsaw in as an indy either if Poland is spawning at Kracow. The AI needs room to expand. On that note I've got another suggestion. Why don't we change the minimum no. of tiles between cities from 1 to 2? It would stop the AI building a lot of cities all close together and encourage the player to expand more widely. I think the code could be changed fairly easily AFAIK.

I would agree with this. In every game I play, the AI almost always builds it second city 2 tiles from its capitol, and normally on top of a food resource. As a result large parts of europe (particularly in the east) are left empty late in the game.

 

[onedreamer]

I think there should be more indy representation of the baltic cultures. Hence:
Danzing (I think it is already included even if not in this list)
Koenigsberg
Novgorod

 

[jessiecat]

I think there should be more indy representation of the baltic cultures. Hence:
Danzing (I think it is already included even if not in this list)
Koenigsberg
Novgorod

Danzig is already included. (Gdansk)
Novgorod is definitely on the list.(not on the Baltic though).
Koenigsberg won't be as its only 1-2 tiles from Gdansk.
However, on the Baltic we're also including Lubeck, Memel, Riga and Abo.
So along with Gdansk that makes five on the Baltic (not counting Sweden).
Should be plenty IMO.

 

[onedreamer]

all right. One more thing: why is Catania the indipendent city in 500 AD in Sicily ? At that time, Syracuse was far more important, actually one of the most important cities in the euro-arabian world. One of the Byzantine emperors even moved the capital there. After Syracuse, Messina and Trapani were both more important than Catania. After the Arabian conquest, Palermo became the most important city. Catania became somewhat important later, after the Norman reconquista.

 

[st.lucifer]

all right. One more thing: why is Catania the indipendent city in 500 AD in Sicily ? At that time, Syracuse was far more important, actually one of the most important cities in the euro-arabian world. One of the Byzantine emperors even moved the capital there. After Syracuse, Messina and Trapani were both more important than Catania. After the Arabian conquest, Palermo became the most important city. Catania became somewhat important later, after the Norman reconquista.

I actually wondered this also, and moved the mountain to make room for it(Siracusa was my original suggestion for a Sicilian city), but I deferred to Jessiecat after looking up the dates on Catania and finding out that it was present and fairly large in 500 AD. I'm fine with changing it (I'd switch the mountain back to its prior spot) if it doesn't create trouble.

Does it create problems if I do that?

 

[jessiecat]

I actually wondered this also, and moved the mountain to make room for it(Siracusa was my original suggestion for a Sicilian city), but I deferred to Jessiecat after looking up the dates on Catania and finding out that it was present and fairly large in 500 AD. I'm fine with changing it (I'd switch the mountain back to its prior spot) if it doesn't create trouble.

Does it create problems if I do that?

I'm OK with changing it too if people prefer it though I think Palermo became the most important city in the Norman period. In my present game as Genoa I conquered Catania and just founded Setia in the early 1500s. So that kinda works for me historically esp. if the Setia tile becomes Palermo. And there is room for both on our map. In fact, if you swapped the mountain back and it became Siracusa that would work just as well for me.

 

[st.lucifer]

I'm OK with changing it too if people prefer it though I think Palermo became the most important city in the Norman period. In my present game as Genoa I conquered Catania and just founded Setia in the early 1500s. So that kinda works for me historically esp. if the Setia tile becomes Palermo. And there is room for both on our map. In fact, if you swapped the mountain back and it became Siracusa that would work just as well for me.

If we switch the mountain and make the city Siracusa, that leaves more room for a productive Palermo. Fine with me. I'll update it in the next couple of days.

Does anyone have objections to replacing Caen with Calais, which would then flip to the English? This way, we can extend the French core area west without giving them extra cities, and have the English core area cover part of the continent to make conflict with France more likely.

By the way, I agree with onedreamer that more civs should be interested in Sicily. I think we lowered Arabian interest because it would spread them too thin, but they should have at least a little incentive to take the island, as should Venice, Cordoba, Spain, and maybe even the Norse (although that may do more harm than good).

 

[jessiecat]

If we switch the mountain and make the city Siracusa, that leaves more room for a productive Palermo. Fine with me. I'll update it in the next couple of days.

Does anyone have objections to replacing Caen with Calais, which would then flip to the English? This way, we can extend the French core area west without giving them extra cities, and have the English core area cover part of the continent to make conflict with France more likely.

By the way, I agree with onedreamer that more civs should be interested in Sicily. I think we lowered Arabian interest because it would spread them too thin, but they should have at least a little incentive to take the island, as should Venice, Cordoba, Spain, and maybe even the Norse (although that may do more harm than good).

I prefer the Calais option. Even though Caen is important in terms of the Norman invasion of Britain, flipping it from Britain is kinda backwards. Calais remained part of England right up to Henry VIII's time so it is a much better choice IMO. What you do need to prevent however is France wanting to settle south of London before England spawns. That is really annoying.
I agree about Sicily. A lot of people could want it esp. if we give it enough resources to attract their interest.
BTW Are we decided now on the indies so they can be included in the next version? I guess you read my post above about not including Warsaw in your square so Poland can expand there?

 

[onedreamer]

I'm OK with changing it too if people prefer it though I think Palermo became the most important city in the Norman period. In my present game as Genoa I conquered Catania and just founded Setia in the early 1500s. So that kinda works for me historically esp. if the Setia tile becomes Palermo. And there is room for both on our map. In fact, if you swapped the mountain back and it became Siracusa that would work just as well for me.

Nope, Palermo became important with the Arabs. In fact, they made it the capital of Sicily, position that it still holds today. Previously Syracuse was the center of culture of the island, but -unlike the rest of Sicily, and especially western Sicily who felt oppressed and not part of the Roman Empire- it opposed a strong resistance to the Arab occupation. As a result, when they finally entered the city, they slaughtered a lot of people, plundered most riches and didn't take their culture there as they did with Palermo, which owns much to the Arabs. After the Arabs Syracuse recovered a bit, but remained the shade of what it was in the past (according to Cicero, the most beautiful city in the world).

 

[onedreamer]

nevermind, this was for the HRE.

 

[micbic]

By the way, I agree with onedreamer that more civs should be interested in Sicily. I think we lowered Arabian interest because it would spread them too thin, but they should have at least a little incentive to take the island, as should Venice, Cordoba, Spain, and maybe even the Norse (although that may do more harm than good).

Especially Spain (Aragon, once an indepedent nation, had all the West Mediterranean islands and Naples under control at once) and Arabs, but Byzantines could be interested for Sicily and Southern Italy too (before the Norman invasion, Italy south of Rome was Byzantine).