RFC Europe Independents

[Hitti-Litti]

That would be great. With wolves and bears one could guarantee that any cities wouldn't be created in Finland without a garrison, settlers are great food for the wolves.

 

[jessiecat]

That would be great. With wolves and bears one could guarantee that any cities wouldn't be created in Finland without a garrison, settlers are great food for the wolves.

Didn't you guys used to sacrifice bears to the Great Sky God or something?
Maybe just a couple of goody huts hiding a giant bear with attitude, bent on revenge.

 

[onedreamer]

please leave Florence indipendent and Pisa flip to Genoa. What's the problem with that ? Florence will control most of the mainland while Pisa will control sea squares. If the vicinity is such a dreadful problem (Florence was already moved where it doesn't belong to in order to not cross too much with Pisa, they are distant enough now don't you think ?), give them more resources and initial buildings. For example, Pisa should have marble in the square North of it, Florence shouldn't have Marble. Let Venice spawn area stretch along the Po Valley and Istria/Dalmatia, not Tuscany.

 

[micbic]

Should we make Milan flip to Venice, or will it harden the Genoan UHV?

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Didn't you guys used to sacrifice bears to the Great Sky God or something?
Maybe just a couple of goody huts hiding a giant bear with attitude, bent on revenge.

Nah, we just ate them but first apologized the dead bear for killing it.

 

[st.lucifer]

please leave Florence indipendent and Pisa flip to Genoa. What's the problem with that ? Florence will control most of the mainland while Pisa will control sea squares. If the vicinity is such a dreadful problem (Florence was already moved where it doesn't belong to in order to not cross too much with Pisa, they are distant enough now don't you think ?), give them more resources and initial buildings. For example, Pisa should have marble in the square North of it, Florence shouldn't have Marble. Let Venice spawn area stretch along the Po Valley and Istria/Dalmatia, not Tuscany.

At this point, I'm less concerned with making Pisa and Florence stronger/more resource-rich than ensuring that Venice and Genoa survive as viable civs, which hasn't really been the case of late. Part of the problem is that AI Venice and AI Genoa end up fighting the independents in those two cities (with or without the flip), and are ultimately overrun. I feel like they'd have more of a chance if Venice flipped Firenze, even if that gives them control of half of Tuscany (ahistorical). We can give them Istria in the core/flip zone, but that doesn't give them much benefit, as there's nothing prebuilt there. We can't extend their core/flip zone much further into the Po valley without conflicting with the Genoan core area, and they can't overlap.

Should we make Milan flip to Venice, or will it harden the Genoan UHV?

It won't just make the UHV harder, it'll make the existence of Genoa as a viable city difficult. It's also difficult to extend the Venetian core into Lombardia without conflicting with the Genoan core.

 

[sedna17]

I just had a test game in which Venice took the whole Adriatic coast and Crete. Due to their discounted tech costs that meant they were researching frigates around 1300 when I popped in to see how my massive hordes of mongols were doing. Of course everyone was still too far ahead in technology -- not that their fancy "muskets" could withstand the might of the Khan!

The new weakened indies and making Firenze not the same "indy" as Rome might be helping Venice/Genoa. Of course, that was just one game. Rolling another now and then I really will post this new version for others to play with.

 

[st.lucifer]

I just had a test game in which Venice took the whole Adriatic coast and Crete. Due to their discounted tech costs that meant they were researching frigates around 1300 when I popped in to see how my massive hordes of mongols were doing. Of course everyone was still too far ahead in technology -- not that their fancy "muskets" could withstand the might of the Khan!

The new weakened indies and making Firenze not the same "indy" as Rome might be helping Venice/Genoa. Of course, that was just one game. Rolling another now and then I really will post this new version for others to play with.

Sedna, do you want the small map fixes before the new update? (it's mostly just cleaning up some of the marshy areas - removing mud that's mistakenly been left on grassland, making a little more arable land available in the Nile and Danube deltas; moving/creating the Volga Delta for Astrakhan)

 

[sedna17]

Sedna, do you want the small map fixes before the new update? (it's mostly just cleaning up some of the marshy areas - removing mud that's mistakenly been left on grassland, making a little more arable land available in the Nile and Danube deltas; moving/creating the Volga Delta for Astrakhan)

Sure, if you've got it ready.

 

[micbic]

It won't just make the UHV harder, it'll make the existence of Genoa as a viable city difficult. It's also difficult to extend the Venetian core into Lombardia without conflicting with the Genoan core.

While I agree that things will get hard for Boccanegra's people, aren't we supposed to get Venice and Genoa in war? And what better way there is for that, than giving them a common part of core, perhaps in Lombardia (without Milan flipping to any of them)

 

[st.lucifer]

While I agree that things will get hard for Boccanegra's people, aren't we supposed to get Venice and Genoa in war? And what better way there is for that, than giving them a common part of core, perhaps in Lombardia (without Milan flipping to any of them)

Yes, that is the goal. But you're missing an important point - it is NOT POSSIBLE, as in crash-the-game-not-possible, for civs to have overlapping core areas. To review, the core area is the rectangular region which flips to a civ upon spawn. Those do not overlap. It IS possible and desirable to give both Venice and Genoa a high desirability value for Lombardy/Milano, and we should certainly encourage that. But if we have Milan flip to Genoa, that gives them too large an advantage, and if we have it flip to Venice, that gives them too large an advantage. We're better off leaving it outside of both civs' core areas, but making it highly desirable to each of them.

 

[micbic]

OK then. I suppose you are right.

 

[onedreamer]

At this point, I'm less concerned with making Pisa and Florence stronger/more resource-rich than ensuring that Venice and Genoa survive as viable civs, which hasn't really been the case of late. Part of the problem is that AI Venice and AI Genoa end up fighting the independents in those two cities (with or without the flip), and are ultimately overrun. I feel like they'd have more of a chance if Venice flipped Firenze, even if that gives them control of half of Tuscany (ahistorical). We can give them Istria in the core/flip zone, but that doesn't give them much benefit, as there's nothing prebuilt there. We can't extend their core/flip zone much further into the Po valley without conflicting with the Genoan core area, and they can't overlap.



It won't just make the UHV harder, it'll make the existence of Genoa as a viable city difficult. It's also difficult to extend the Venetian core into Lombardia without conflicting with the Genoan core.

Venice should should flip Verona (on the hill with coal). If you don't want an indipendent Verona there, Venice should flip an indipendent Aquileia. Incidentally, Venice was founded by Aquileians. Also, it should start with galley and a settler loaded on it and high priorities to colonize Istria and Dalmatia. The goal of Venice shouldn't be to expand in Tuscany/Italy, and if they flip Florence they will end up in a permanent war with Genoa over the control of Italy, which IMO will be worse than one with mere indipendents.

Genua should spawn Pisa and build Nice and aim at controlling Milan and Corsica. Milan, Florence and Pisa should generate less culture as indipendents if possible. Their strong culture creates problem to the Genuan AI.

 

[Phallus]

Imbir Nish (Inverness)

Inbhir Nis?

 

[micbic]

Some notes:
Indy Tangiers should become Tingis.
Similarly, Toledo should be changed to Toletum.
And was indy Valencia removed?

 

[sedna17]

Okay on renaming. I did remove Valencia in the latest version to see if encouraging Cordoba to go westward first (into Portugal spawn zone) would help kill the Cordoban AI. This was probably unnecessary, and counter-productive to the "start strong, then fade" thing we're trying to have going with Cordoba, so I plan to return Valencia.

 

[jessiecat]

Okay on renaming. I did remove Valencia in the latest version to see if encouraging Cordoba to go westward first (into Portugal spawn zone) would help kill the Cordoban AI. This was probably unnecessary, and counter-productive to the "start strong, then fade" thing we're trying to have going with Cordoba, so I plan to return Valencia.

I wondered what had happened to Valencia when I replayed Cordoba. though I'm glad you're returning it. That made Cordoba even weaker for the human player against a very strong Spain. I would add a couple of Berber cavalry at Tanjah too to give them a decent presence in North Africa esp. with the barb swarm at about 1000AD.
Also, just to clarify;
Toledo should not use the ancient Roman name. It was renamed Toledo by the Visigoths who made it their capitol in the early 6th.C. If it is captured by Cordoba though it should adopt its Arab name "Tulaytulah".

 

[civmademepoor]

I'd like to chime in that I found the new city in the 3/22 version, Cartajanna/Denia (Denia as Spain) far more productive and useful than the old Valencia. Maybe my current game is an oddball, but if the name is returned I'd submit that I prefer the more southerly location (Alicante?): the old one seemed to take out at least one better city placement and I always had trouble making it produce.

On a related note, what do people think of expanding the area for what would be called Madrid, I think Aranjuez is close now? Or perhaps moving Toledo one square east and renaming it Madrid when/if Spain takes it? Or dropping Toledo all together in favour of a more westerly Salamanca? Or, best case if impossible scenario, moving Toledo one square east and only renaming it Madrid if it is changed to be the Spanish capital? Maybe I'm just concerned that there's no real potential for a Madrid in the mod without razing Toledo.

 

[micbic]

Also, just to clarify;
Toledo should not use the ancient Roman name. It was renamed Toledo by the Visigoths who made it their capitol in the early 6th.C. If it is captured by Cordoba though it should adopt its Arab name "Tulaytulah".

I'm just telling that I found Toledo as ''Toletum'' in a Wikipedia map of the Visigoth Empire.
Moreover, I would be in favor of dropping Valencia for Carthago Nova, which was more of an important city at that time.
I would also like to share a nice webpage I found as searching for those. www.euratlas.net It also shows Toledo as Toletum.

 

[sedna17]

Maybe we should just give Cordoba another settler on spawn, then you're free to found whatever western city you want.

I'm not sure about the Toledo/Madrid thing. It's sort of like the Seville/Cordoba/Granada problem in the south -- just not enough room unless you pack cities in really tight. Toleda was much more important for the early stages of our mod, Madrid more important later on.

Or, best case if impossible scenario, moving Toledo one square east and only renaming it Madrid if it is changed to be the Spanish capital?

This is not impossible. Plain RFC has code sort of like this to deal with Istanbul and moving the Turkish capitol there. It requires coding in some special cases into the code, but it could be done.