RFC Europe map development thread

[Talkie_Toaster]

I live here too, I know it isn't part of England, I used that term because that's how it's named in Civ at the moment. I can't think of a better way to represent the union in civ than that though.

And you have to be honest, England is very much the "dominant partner".

 

[Úmarth]

Not really, English culture may be dominant due to its greatly larger population (and tbh, is that really any different from London/southern culture being more prominent than our culture here in the north?). But constitutionally speaking they're equal partners, and in real political terms Scottish MPs probably have slightly more influence right now.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

Not really, English culture may be dominant due to its greatly larger population (and tbh, is that really any different from London/southern culture being more prominent than our culture here in the north?). But constitutionally speaking they're equal partners, and in real political terms Scottish MPs probably have slightly more influence right now.

Well, I suppose. But how do we represent that in the game?

 

[Úmarth]

Eh, I dunno. I try to stay out of the discussion phase tbh... I'm sure Scotland will have been discussed.

 

[st.lucifer]

Well, I suppose. But how do we represent that in the game?

Basically, we don't.

The idea of a Celtic civ (Irish, Scottish, or an unholy amalgamation of both) has been proposed and rejected. We'll have some independents representing Celtic cities, but in terms of historical importance, timing, playability, spacing, and game balance, it does not make sense to have a second civ in the British Isles. Sorry.

 

[jessiecat]

Basically, we don't.

The idea of a Celtic civ (Irish, Scottish, or an unholy amalgamation of both) has been proposed and rejected. We'll have some independents representing Celtic cities, but in terms of historical importance, timing, playability, spacing, and game balance, it does not make sense to have a second civ in the British Isles. Sorry.

I'd reject that too. Esp. if you factor in real historical events like the Danish
influence in the North and the Norman invasion in the south. The English will
have their hands full in conquering independents in the beginning anyway.

BTW Welcome back to these threads. Which of the three are we using now?
Hope you had a good holoiday. Happy New Year.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

Meh. I suppose I agree in terms of gameplay, but they did have a very large historical influence.

 

[jessiecat]

Meh. I suppose I agree in terms of gameplay, but they did have a very large historical influence.

Welcome to this thread. St. lucifer's in charge, but everybody's input is
welcome. Small world, this CFC. My Mum's from Manchester and her dad
played football for Oldham in the 20's. I support Man U. myself.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

Welcome to this thread. St. lucifer's in charge, but everybody's input is
welcome. Small world, this CFC. My Mum's from Manchester and her dad
played football for Oldham in the 20's. I support Man U. myself.

Wow, small world indeed! Yeah, I've lived here all my life (15 years ). Dad's from Stoke, mum's from Wolverhampton.

 

[st.lucifer]

Meh. I suppose I agree in terms of gameplay, but they did have a very large historical influence.

Agreed. But you could make similar arguments about other unrepresented peoples in most other parts of Europe. The Celts are just better known and more highly romanticized. If you wish to contest this, I invite you to America to see thousands of drunken fraternity members, ignorant of their dubious heritage, wearing kilts.

Seriously, the Celts did get consideration, as did the Normans - the Normans, I think, were the last possible civ we eliminated (as they had important roles in France and S. Italy as well.) There's just not enough room. The UK regions are tricky to balance - the channel makes invasions infrequent and difficult, and the region really should have a lot of resources - but if you give them too many, and no competition, England will always be a dominant power in the game. Conversely, as there isn't much space to expand, the English game is limited in terms of conquest options (with big stability penalties for controlling areas of continental Europe.) The best balance seems to be giving an independent, proto-Celtic civ Edinburgh, York, Ath Cliath, and possibly a small Welsh city, and forcing England to expend its energy early securing its core region.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

That seems fair. I just saw how large the British Isles are on the Europe map, didn't seem fair to give it all to England from the start .

 

[Úmarth]

Agreed. But you could make similar arguments about other unrepresented peoples in most other parts of Europe. The Celts are just better known and more highly romanticized. If you wish to contest this, I invite you to America to see thousands of drunken fraternity members, ignorant of their dubious heritage, wearing kilts.

Seriously, the Celts did get consideration, as did the Normans - the Normans, I think, were the last possible civ we eliminated (as they had important roles in France and S. Italy as well.) There's just not enough room. The UK regions are tricky to balance - the channel makes invasions infrequent and difficult, and the region really should have a lot of resources - but if you give them too many, and no competition, England will always be a dominant power in the game. Conversely, as there isn't much space to expand, the English game is limited in terms of conquest options (with big stability penalties for controlling areas of continental Europe.) The best balance seems to be giving an independent, proto-Celtic civ Edinburgh, York, Ath Cliath, and possibly a small Welsh city, and forcing England to expend its energy early securing its core region.

A powerful Viking civ could also pose problems for England in the early part of the game. That put together with strong independents should slow England's expansion down sufficiently so they only become a power later in the game.

Or alternatively, I just had an idea: how about having England spawn in 1050ish? With one Norman city and a good military, with one of their UHV goals being to conquer the entire British isles? This would be good because it is historical, modern England is ultimately a legacy of the Norman conquest rather than earlier states, and at the moment a lot of civs seem to be spawning in the beginning of the game.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

A powerful Viking civ could also pose problems for England in the early part of the game. That put together with strong independents should slow England's expansion down sufficiently so they only become a power later in the game.

Or alternatively, I just had an idea: how about having England spawn in 1050ish? With one Norman city and a good military, with one of their UHV goals being to conquer the entire British isles? This would be good because it is historical, modern England is ultimately a legacy of the Norman conquest rather than earlier states, and at the moment a lot of civs seem to be spawning in the beginning of the game.

Late spawning England sounds really good. It solves lots of problems, and evens out the civ spawning more

 

[jessiecat]

A powerful Viking civ could also pose problems for England in the early part of the game. That put together with strong independents should slow England's expansion down sufficiently so they only become a power later in the game.

Or alternatively, I just had an idea: how about having England spawn in 1050ish? With one Norman city and a good military, with one of their UHV goals being to conquer the entire British isles? This would be good because it is historical, modern England is ultimately a legacy of the Norman conquest rather than earlier states, and at the moment a lot of civs seem to be spawning in the beginning of the game.

Are you really sure about this? What you're suggesting means that historically
you've got a British Isles of independent cities right up to1050 which
suddenly all fall, just like that, to a Norman conquest. What's going to stop
a strong Viking civ from grabbing the whole lot before that. I know there
was the Danelaw up to about 1000AD, but do you really want the Vikings
to grab everything? The history of England didn't suddenly start in 1066,
did it? The idea has serious flaws.
I thought we had the right idea in the first place. An English civ that
spawns in the south after 500AD with independents elsewhere.
Why change that?

 

[Úmarth]

It has flaws, not necessarily unsolvable. You could include southern England in the Norman spawn for a start.

No, the history of England didn't suddenly start in 1066. But nor did it suddenly start in 500 AD, there are no sudden starts for any of the civs. I think 1066 is an appropriate start because it marks a change from unstable, warring Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (in 1066 the Kingdom of Wessex had "united" England, but in the century before that it Mercia had done the same and before them Northumbria had done the same, and there was the short period when it was part of Canute's empire) to a single, solid state which has had continued existence to this day. It involved a complete replacement of the ruling class not since repeated, and had a lasting effect on our language and culture.

And a 1066 start makes more sense from a game play perspective:
* reduces crowded civ spawning around 500 AD (it should be noted that two civs can't spawn at exactly the same turn in RFC!)
* makes things more difficult for England. I think we're all starting to realise that England has a very strong position that needs to be counterbalance, conquest of the British isles should occupy it for a few centuries, which is historically correct.
* It lets us have England start with cities in northern France. Immediately embroiling England in a rivalry with France which was the arguably the most prominent feature of its Medieval history. Otherwise the AI would be too inclined to isolate themselves in Britain, giving them another advantage: great relationships with its neighbours. In reality we want it to greedily pursue France throughout most of the game (another UHV goal, maybe?).

 

[jessiecat]

It has flaws, not necessarily unsolvable. You could include southern England in the Norman spawn for a start.

No, the history of England didn't suddenly start in 1066. But nor did it suddenly start in 500 AD, there are no sudden starts for any of the civs. I think 1066 is an appropriate start because it marks a change from unstable, warring Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (in 1066 the Kingdom of Wessex had "united" England, but in the century before that it Mercia had done the same and before them Northumbria had done the same, and there was the short period when it was part of Canute's empire) to a single, solid state which has had continued existence to this day. It involved a complete replacement of the ruling class not since repeated, and had a lasting effect on our language and culture.

And a 1066 start makes more sense from a game play perspective:
* reduces crowded civ spawning around 500 AD (it should be noted that two civs can't spawn at exactly the same turn in RFC!)
* makes things more difficult for England. I think we're all starting to realise that England has a very strong position that needs to be counterbalance, conquest of the British isles should occupy it for a few centuries, which is historically correct.
* It lets us have England start with cities in northern France. Immediately embroiling England in a rivalry with France which was the arguably the most prominent feature of its Medieval history. Otherwise the AI would be too inclined to isolate themselves in Britain, giving them another advantage: great relationships with its neighbours. In reality we want it to greedily pursue France throughout most of the game (another UHV goal, maybe?).

I appreciate your points about game play and crowded civ spawning but
your idea presents other problems as well. Assuming your last point about
the English spawning in Normandy, wouldn't that be too close to the earlier
French start, and run the risk of being swamped by it? Also, if the whole
of the British Isles are occupied only by independents up to 1050, why
wouldn't it be invaded early by an earlier Viking start? In that scenario, the
English would find it hard to expand from Normandy and never get a chance
to develop. I understand the conflict between an Anglo-Saxon start and
the Norman Conquest, but I don't think starting the English as the Normans
is really the answer. I'd prefer an earlier start (800?) allowing the English
kingdoms to unite into one by 1050 and then Normandy flipping to it in 1066.
Whichever way you start England, there are problems. As there are with
a lot of other civ starts in this mod, aren't there? I think we should be
guided more by the way it was handled in RFC while retaining some
historical accuracy where we can. I'd like to hear Rhye's opinion on
issues like this. It's his mod too, isn't it?

 

[Úmarth]

That's actually one of my motivations for this suggestion: I was thinking about what is the core concept of RFC, because this is a modcomp of RFC after all (which reminds me, I dare say Rhye has noticed it, but I has anyone actually asked his permission to mod his code? We probably should), and its clearly the "Rise and Fall" bit. Unless we have civilizations periodically falling and being replaced by new ones then its just another civ scenario where a load of civs start and then compete for the rest of the game. Yes, the Vikings will have the opportunity to invade Britain, but Greece, Rome, Babylon, Persia and Arabia all have the opportunity to colonise Anatolia before the Turks spawn and it doesn't stop them from becoming a world power. And Viking presence is not a bad thing:
1) Viking-controlled areas were historically among the Dark Age British kingdoms.
2) It will add more challenge for Britain, otherwise it would be quite boring: conquer a load of independents, maybe some of France and then wait?
3) Successful conquest by Britain (we should make this almost a certainty) would reduce the early power of the Vikings, maybe even collapse them, which is historically correct and a good move in terms of game play.

I think this is a perfect case of something we should be thinking of throughout the mod: there should be several phases to the game. Let's not just have France and Germany and Britain in their modern territories all the way through the game. Like RFC, regions should be controlled by a few civs. I've already mentioned how the Middle East goes from Babylon/Persia -> Arabia -> the Ottomans, but there are plenty of examples. Central America starts off Maya, then becomes Aztec (this is basically a case of one civ replacing another, like the Viking-England thing, so there is a precedent in RFC) then usually becomes European. India starts off Indian, then usually is split between Persia and the Independents then usually some Europeans and finally India rebirths. I could go on.

 

[Zipzapzup]

And a 1066 start makes more sense from a game play perspective:
* reduces crowded civ spawning around 500 AD (it should be noted that two civs can't spawn at exactly the same turn in RFC!)

This is not correct, on gamestart it is possible. The only problem is the popup with the question if you want to change your civ which will pop up for two civs at the same time which is going to cause an error. As you might noticed you can't change your civ from egypt to china at the start of RFC.

 

[jessiecat]

That's actually one of my motivations for this suggestion: I was thinking about what is the core concept of RFC, because this is a modcomp of RFC after all (which reminds me, I dare say Rhye has noticed it, but I has anyone actually asked his permission to mod his code? We probably should), and its clearly the "Rise and Fall" bit. Unless we have civilizations periodically falling and being replaced by new ones then its just another civ scenario where a load of civs start and then compete for the rest of the game. Yes, the Vikings will have the opportunity to invade Britain, but Greece, Rome, Babylon, Persia and Arabia all have the opportunity to colonise Anatolia before the Turks spawn and it doesn't stop them from becoming a world power. And Viking presence is not a bad thing:
1) Viking-controlled areas were historically among the Dark Age British kingdoms.
2) It will add more challenge for Britain, otherwise it would be quite boring: conquer a load of independents, maybe some of France and then wait?
3) Successful conquest by Britain (we should make this almost a certainty) would reduce the early power of the Vikings, maybe even collapse them, which is historically correct and a good move in terms of game play.

I think this is a perfect case of something we should be thinking of throughout the mod: there should be several phases to the game. Let's not just have France and Germany and Britain in their modern territories all the way through the game. Like RFC, regions should be controlled by a few civs. I've already mentioned how the Middle East goes from Babylon/Persia -> Arabia -> the Ottomans, but there are plenty of examples. Central America starts off Maya, then becomes Aztec (this is basically a case of one civ replacing another, like the Viking-England thing, so there is a precedent in RFC) then usually becomes European. India starts off Indian, then usually is split between Persia and the Independents then usually some Europeans and finally India rebirths. I could go on.

Your idea of a Norman start for England has a lot of merit, the more I think
about it but I'm still concerned about balance. Sure you could make them
strong to take over Britain but what would stop the AI or the human player
from deciding to wipe out the French instead of invading Britain? Wouldn't
this completely nullify any chance of France deveoping at all? Pity the
poor mug who wants to play as France, eh? Unless France and the Normans
started off as allies for the first few turns anyway? I'm not sure you'd not
end up completely skewing the balance from the start. Still, it's one idea.
As far as Rhye is concerned, I thought he was involved from the beginning.
If not, why are we using his name and his concept without permission?
I'm surprised to hear this.

 

[SadoMacho]

Question is also:
The IA will have France too in it's area of "lands to be conquered". If the IA chooses to invade England first (I think it will not because the IA will most of the time not attack independents, but rather real civs, and it has to invade over sea, not its speciality), can it conquer enough land to make it a civ that would make it's homeland on the Island, and will it change its capital to London (or on other island based city).

The idea of the invasion is a great one, but can the AI conquer England about 90% of the time? We need to see a strong England a lot of the time, els the game would be close enough to a history-symulator. Sometimes it will be nice to see a what is world were the Norman Invasion failed, but not to often.

I think the Normans will try to conquer France rather than to go to England.

I like the idea very much, and if you can find a good mechanism so they will conquer England first and don't go after France, it would be overwelming.