RFC Europe map development thread

[SadoMacho]

@St. lucifer: IJsel-river is important so that Amsterdam can build a dyke, that's why I wanted it in.

Bruges was the most important city in the lowlands untill the 1400's. Ghent had a littke bit less importance, Antwerp en Amsterdam became important after 1500 when the harbor of Bruges became land. In 1300 a revolte in Bruges (= Brugse Metten) against the French rule (they killed all French) lead to a war. Millitia's from Bruges Ghent, Ieper(=Ypers) and Kortrijk (the most important Flemish cities, Bruges was the leader)) destroyed the French Knight armies.

About the Kempen:
It has a sand soil with small shrubs, it's hooter in the day, and colder at night. It has some simmilarities with medditerranian lands-> plains
(it's a heath-land, in Dutch : heide). There were also some coalmines here. It isn't lowlands, so I'd go with plains.

On the teutonic Knights:
Clearly has been worked out, so...whatever you thought about is fine by me.

On the Anglo-saxon thing:
I once heared the anglo-saxons had a lot of little Kingdoms in England fight off eachother. In those days, a big army has around 80 warriors. So, why a civ for small tibal nations. I'm in favour of a Norman invasion (London flip) with a group of independent cities here.

 

[Úmarth]

Yeah, I was thinking that, but it's the wrong side of the Humber. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't another city I wasn't aware of before I corrected that. Although, thinking about it York could be on the tile to the right of its current position; it just depends whether you want it coastal or not.

I'm also not a fan of the anglo-saxon/wessex civ.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

With regards to the Britain thing, lots of strong independants is pretty historically accurate really, but adding one more civ would be unnececary.

 

[Disenfrancised]

@jessiecat, the ice is a placeholder for moorland, since we want to distiguish it from plains visually though it has the same characteristics. See jungle filling in for marsh.

Cherbourg would not be my choice as a) it would be a crappier city, b) provoke less conflict with France and c) although younger Caen was more important and more typical of the frankified Normans this spawn is representing

Yeah, I was thinking that, but it's the wrong side of the Humber. Just wanted to make sure there wasn't another city I wasn't aware of before I corrected that. Although, thinking about it York could be on the tile to the right of its current position; it just depends whether you want it coastal or not.

Yorvick is a misspelling yes .

Yeah there wasn't space for York and a another Northumbrian city so I shifted it south. It really should be coastal though as its a) further east than the main body of the Pennines represented by the hills, and b) it should be a major norse target

I'm also not a fan of the anglo-saxon/wessex civ.

Neither am I, unless we're planning to add another 10 civs to go with it . I am liking the idea of difference between Celtic and Germannic independents though (to which we can add Slavic and 'North African/Mediterranean' to bring the total to 4).

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

I am liking the idea of difference between Celtic and Germannic independents though (to which we can add Slavic and 'North African/Mediterranean' to bring the total to 4).

This I like. I hate declaring war on an independent and getting attacked by ones in a completely different place.

 

[Depravo]

This idea that England was a mire of squabbling petty states prior to 1066 should have died long ago.

By 1066 England was a culturally self-assured and relatively well-centralised kingdom by the standards of Northern Europe, and had been for well over a century. Canute's reign was relatively short and did not substantially affect Anglo-Saxon culture. If the idea of English unity starts with Bede, it could be argued that the concept of a unified English culture predates the Norman conquest by at least 350 years, and the concept became reality after a series of false starts and the Danish wars during the reign of Alfred and his son at the latest.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

This idea that England was a mire of squabbling petty states prior to 1066 should have died long ago.

By 1066 England was a culturally self-assured and relatively well-centralised kingdom by the standards of Northern Europe, and had been for well over a century. Canute's reign was relatively short and did not substantially affect Anglo-Saxon culture. If the idea of English unity starts with Bede, it could be argued that the concept of a unified English culture predates the Norman conquest by at least 350 years, and the concept became reality after a series of false starts and the Danish wars during the reign of Alfred and his son at the latest.

Interesting information. Is the gameplay value enough in itself to justify the historical innacuracy?

 

[mitsho]

I'd say so! Historical accuracy isn't everything. And as we know it from normal game. Germany and France and most other civs have much more place to them, so if we give the English too much time, they will be too far in time, as they really don't have that much room to spare. When was Wales conquered? 1280AD? When Scotland? (First try ~1300, Successful: 1600) When was the hundred years war (campaigns in France) 1340 or so.

I'd say 1066 is good. Gives them much (just enough) to do in a short time. But that is probably more gameplay stuff... Btw. We really need to have a look in the events system. If the English manage to conquer Scotland easily early enough, there need to be numerous rebellions...

m

 

[Depravo]

Interesting information. Is the gameplay value enough in itself to justify the historical innacuracy?

There may still be valid reasons for starting England late / on the Continent in game terms, but certainly not because late Anglo-Saxon England was extraordinarily fragmented or backwards.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

There may still be valid reasons for starting England late / on the Continent in game terms, but certainly not because late Anglo-Saxon England was extraordinarily fragmented or backwards.

I always thought it was a few seperate kingdoms that would be impossible to represent in the game, not that they were backwards. I may be wrong...

 

[Disenfrancised]

There may still be valid reasons for starting England late / on the Continent in game terms, but certainly not because late Anglo-Saxon England was extraordinarily fragmented or backwards.

I agree with you that england was a unified and well off state by the 900s, but it is hard to show this in the gameplay

a) Its not that long before the Norman conquest so this Anglo-Saxon kingdom won't have much time to do things.
b) It rose out of various smaller kingdoms - any of which could probably have won out, so we really have to include several OR none of them, which again constrains the time we have for the unified state.
c) Anglo-Saxon england didn't really do much abroad (or domestically in terms that can be shown in CIV), making it less fun to play historically (just sitting there being the envy of Europe), whilst the Norman legacy influenced English politics for the next 800 years.

Thus the compromise of strong independents (who don't fight each other after all) is best in my opinion.

 

[st.lucifer]

Ok, let's scrap the pre-Norman British civ idea. Independents it is. I'm in favor of making York coastal - should its coastal tile be a hill? I know the area's hilly, but I've never been to York. Putting it on a hill would also make it much harder to conquer.

Disenfrancised, are you suggesting that the marsh be moved west to encompass the squares around the Ouse? I did that initially, but then worried that it essentially made the river worthless. I left the square to the east of the mouth open for Norfolk, figuring it would be a more productive city there - but it can be changed to be more accurate. Do we put sheep or cows east of there?

Caen over Rouen for gameplay. You're right about the culture issue. Do we include any of Normandy in the flip - Brest or Rennes, or is that too big/powerful?

@SM - Dikes can be built in coastal cities - they don't require a river like levees. We may want to tweak the function/value/tech requirement for dikes anyway - as they stand, they're obscenely powerful - so I would be less inclined to add the IJsel. I'm fine with reordering swamps to open up Bruges' space, although I think the proposed UP for the Dutch is still being able to build on/improve marsh, so it may not make much difference.

 

[jessiecat]

I agree with you that england was a unified and well off state by the 900s, but it is hard to show this in the gameplay

a) Its not that long before the Norman conquest so this Anglo-Saxon kingdom won't have much time to do things.
b) It rose out of various smaller kingdoms - any of which could probably have won out, so we really have to include several OR none of them, which again constrains the time we have for the unified state.
c) Anglo-Saxon england didn't really do much abroad (or domestically in terms that can be shown in CIV), making it less fun to play historically (just sitting there being the envy of Europe), whilst the Norman legacy influenced English politics for the next 800 years.

Thus the compromise of strong independents (who don't fight each other after all) is best in my opinion.

Sorry if I'm still banging on about the tundra, but I'm surprised you're still
using placeholders. Wouldn't it be much easier just to green all that white
and add a few rocky bits later to represent moors? As Umarth has already
suggested, moorlands are really quite small areas, less than a map square
on our scale. The rest should be grassy hills to provide enough food resources,
esp. in Cornwall and Wales. It's not all wasteland and all of it is green.
(Look at the satellite map I posted of Cornwall). Otherwise building cities
like Plymouth or Swansea with no food would be impossible later in the game.
I'm also with Umarth on English cities being independent prior to the
Norman invasion. As I said earlier, 821 to 1066 is too short for a workable
civ. Just make York and Edinburgh fairly developed and well-defended and
the problem is solved. You can't have 2 playable English civs. That's a
recipe for chaos. The Normans need a chance to get started, or England
as a playable civ would never get off the ground.

 

[Depravo]

The site of York shouldn't be a hill: York city is very low-lying, is at/near the convergence of several rivers, and floods often. Nor is it a remarkable strongpoint.

 

[st.lucifer]

Sorry if I'm still banging on about the tundra, but I'm surprised you're still
using placeholders. Wouldn't it be much easier just to green all that white
and add a few rocky bits later to represent moors? As Umarth has already
suggested, moorlands are really quite small areas, less than a map square
on our scale. The rest should be grassy hills to provide enough food resources,
esp. in Cornwall and Wales. It's not all wasteland and all of it is green.

Unfortunately, we have to use placeholders. Modifying the terrain files would require the creation of another mod, which we could theoretically build the rest of RFC Europe from - but it'll be much harder to work from, and it won't do anything else at this point. I'd love to have updated terrains and resources ready to go, as the map is the area I feel most comfortable being in charge of - but that won't happen until we've got all of the other stuff ready to go. As I said before, I'm fine with changing most of Cornwall back to grass (I'm still going to leave the northernmost hill as a moor), but I'm not going to do an official map update with that and the addition of the Schelde (and the realignment of some marshes) as the only changes.

And I think the pre-Norman English civ idea is dead. No mourning here, even if it was my idea.

 

[st.lucifer]

The site of York shouldn't be a hill: York city is very low-lying, is at/near the convergence of several rivers, and floods often. Nor is it a remarkable strongpoint.

Great. Thanks.

 

[jessiecat]

Ok, let's scrap the pre-Norman British civ idea. Independents it is. I'm in favor of making York coastal - should its coastal tile be a hill? I know the area's hilly, but I've never been to York. Putting it on a hill would also make it much harder to conquer.

Disenfrancised, are you suggesting that the marsh be moved west to encompass the squares around the Ouse? I did that initially, but then worried that it essentially made the river worthless. I left the square to the east of the mouth open for Norfolk, figuring it would be a more productive city there - but it can be changed to be more accurate. Do we put sheep or cows east of there?

Caen over Rouen for gameplay. You're right about the culture issue. Do we include any of Normandy in the flip - Brest or Rennes, or is that too big/powerful?

@SM - Dikes can be built in coastal cities - they don't require a river like levees. We may want to tweak the function/value/tech requirement for dikes anyway - as they stand, they're obscenely powerful - so I would be less inclined to add the IJsel. I'm fine with reordering swamps to open up Bruges' space, although I think the proposed UP for the Dutch is still being able to build on/improve marsh, so it may not make much difference.

Sorry about banging on about the moors, but please read my last two posts
and consider what I've suggested. As far as the other stuff goes, glad you
agree about no pre-Norman civ. It's just not workable game-wise.
About Norfolk, yes to cattle and sheep. it was centre of the medieval wool trade.
And you shouldn't put more than one square of marsh near the Ouse.
Yes to Caen over Rouen only because of position.
As far as York goes it's inland on the bend of the river, but not on a hill,
and as Jorvik it was navigable by river to the sea. So maybe just an inlet
to the square it's on.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Disenfrancised, are you suggesting that the marsh be moved west to encompass the squares around the Ouse?

Very much so. In fact I might whine about it a lot .

I did that initially, but then worried that it essentially made the river worthless.

Yes, as it should be, besides it still gives fresh water to 3 tiles.

I left the square to the east of the mouth open for Norfolk, figuring it would be a more productive city there - but it can be changed to be more accurate. Do we put sheep or cows east of there?

I'd say keep it marshy and then put a cows or wheat to the east of it, enabling a city founded in ipswich's location (which should probably get a fish from the North sea) 2 NE of london.

Caen over Rouen for gameplay. You're right about the culture issue. Do we include any of Normandy in the flip - Brest or Rennes, or is that too big/powerful?

Not accurate (the normans would not gain overlordship of Brittany (which i assmue is what you're talking about ) till the 1150s), and rather powerful to.

@SM - Dikes can be built in coastal cities - they don't require a river like levees. We may want to tweak the function/value/tech requirement for dikes anyway - as they stand, they're obscenely powerful - so I would be less inclined to add the IJsel. I'm fine with reordering swamps to open up Bruges' space, although I think the proposed UP for the Dutch is still being able to build on/improve marsh, so it may not make much difference.

I'm fine with dikes power level, and think they should be moved earlier in the tech tree (and possibly increased in price) - that'd be the Nederlands true UP as improving marsh is not that good.

 

[Úmarth]

The site of York shouldn't be a hill: York city is very low-lying, is at/near the convergence of several rivers, and floods often. Nor is it a remarkable strongpoint.

Sorry about banging on about the moors, but please read my last two posts
and consider what I've suggested. As far as the other stuff goes, glad you
agree about no pre-Norman civ. It's just not workable game-wise.
About Norfolk, yes to cattle and sheep. it was centre of the medieval wool trade.
And you shouldn't put more than one square of marsh near the Ouse.
Yes to Caen over Rouen only because of position.
As far as York goes it's inland on the bend of the river, but not on a hill,
and as Jorvik it was navigable by river to the sea. So maybe just an inlet
to the square it's on.

Yes I agree, it should be one tile to the east. I put it there because I wasn't sure whether we wanted it to be coastal. And maybe a tiny bit of vanity because I live on that tile And yes York is well away from the Pennines, it's very flat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vale_of_York).

It's at the confluence of the Ouse and the Foss, and there was a harbour there in the middle ages if my memory serves me correctly.

 

[jessiecat]

Yes I agree, it should be one tile to the east. I put it there because I wasn't sure whether we wanted it to be coastal. And maybe a tiny bit of vanity because I live on that tile And yes York is well away from the Pennines, it's very flat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vale_of_York).

It's at the confluence of the Ouse and the Foss, and there was a harbour there in the middle ages if my memory serves me correctly.

You remember your visit to the JorvikExperience, don't you? What they
uncovered there was part of the original Viking quayside and shops, so
it was a significant port in the 10th. C. As I said earlier, you could just
leave it as it is with an inlet to the sea. That'd work, I think.