RFC Europe map development thread

[st.lucifer]

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

All right. Sheep ok? Jessiecat pointed out that it was the center of the wool trade. No objections to adding fish either. Moving the marshes west allows either Norfolk or Ipswich. Fine by me.

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.

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.

Blah, my brain must not be working today. I meant Brittany, yes. And that's all the logic required. The spawning area that you included with the earlier map should be fine. Now, this would give the Normans Rouen also (which seems a somewhat likely candidate for the AI to found), but they'd struggle to keep it due to Paris's culture.

I'd rather have a proto-Bristol than Beorma. I realize that Bristol showed up later (around 1150), but it's a much stronger city site.

Increasing the price of a dike might do it. The cities building them often struggle with production before the dike is built, so that would be a good handicap. We're going to have to redo much of the tech tree anyway, so it'll definitely be moved up. The dike is the UB for the Dutch - the UP is the power of polders (? I forget how it was phrased. If I remember right, you were the one who proposed it. ), which involved being able to develop and build on marsh squares. Not a fantastic UP, but the UB more than makes up for it - and it's well-suited to the area.

 

[Úmarth]

@jessiecat
What do you mean by an inlet?

 

[Depravo]

A single water tile protuberating inwards Humber style I shouldn't wonder.

 

[st.lucifer]

If we simply move York one tile eastwards, onto what is currently the square with the corn (representing barley) in it, we solve the problem: it's in the coastal lowland (check), it's got water access (check), and it's on the Humber (check). Problem solved. We can move the barley onto the moor northwards, and there'll be some sort of seafood resource offshore. No major changes needed to the map there.

 

[jessiecat]

If we simply move York one tile eastwards, onto what is currently the square with the corn (representing barley) in it, we solve the problem: it's in the coastal lowland (check), it's got water access (check), and it's on the Humber (check). Problem solved. We can move the barley onto the moor northwards, and there'll be some sort of seafood resource offshore. No major changes needed to the map there.

Sounds OK for York though its not on the Humber as Umarth has pointed
out. It should be on the coast, I agree, but with the grain south of it and
that sheep on a hill to the north of it. With one fish to the east.
I've posted a revision on the other thread about the Norse and Burgundy
start dates, but I'll retell it here.
I probably erred in the Norse date a bit. In order to take in the earliest raids
on Britain (ex. Lindesfarne -793) we really should be looking at an earlier
spawn for the Norse. Say, 750AD or thereabouts.
Burgundy presents more of a problem because the geographical proxity to
the French and German starts. Also Burgundy existed at different times as
different things. Although the Dukes of Burgundy ruled a fairly centralized
state from 843 to 1477, there were earlier smaller versions like Upper
Burgundy and Lower Burgundy whose origins lie in the breakup of the
Frankish Empire in about 500AD. So I agree the Burgundy start must be
earlier but by how much? I would suggest no earlier than 800 but their
spawn area must be strong and southward in direction, as someone else
already mentioned.

 

[Depravo]

There was no significant continuity between the C5 Germanic kingdom of the Burgundians and the Carolingian-era Burgundian state never mind the fifteenth century duchy. At least not that I know of.

The Viking raids may have begun late in the C8 but these were the work of freelancers attacking targets of opportunity not a planned assault coordinated from any central power. Not until early in the C10 do stable Scandinavian monarchies begin to form. Even the Great Army was more or less a wandering host and not until Sweyn Forkbeard's time did the monarch of a Scandinavian kingdom involve himself in England. The nobility got involved earlier - Erik Bloodaxe frx, who came to England precisely because he wasn't able to make good his claim at home.

 

[jessiecat]

There was no significant continuity between the C5 Germanic kingdom of the Burgundians and the Carolingian-era Burgundian state never mind the fifteenth century duchy. At least not that I know of.

The Viking raids may have begun late in the C8 but these were the work of freelancers attacking targets of opportunity not a planned assault coordinated from any central power. Not until early in the C10 do stable Scandinavian monarchies begin to form. Even the Great Army was more or less a wandering host and not until Sweyn Forkbeard's time did the monarch of a Scandinavian kingdom involve himself in England. The nobility got involved earlier - Erik Bloodaxe frx, who came to England precisely because he wasn't able to make good his claim at home.

OK. So taking your valid points, have you any suggestions of dates when
the Norse and the Burgundians could spawn for the purposes of THIS game?
Otherwise, I'm not sure how helpful your comments are.
BTW Check Wiki entry on Duchy of Burgundy.

 

[Depravo]

Burgundians c.880, Norse c.900-950 I would say.

 

[jessiecat]

Burgundians c.880, Norse c.900-950 I would say.

I'm OK with the first, though prefer the 840 date to cooincide with the start
of the Duchy of Burgundy.
As for the Vikings it would be hard to start so late, as they need time to
develop as a civ in their spawn locations, ie Denmark and Sweden, as
they'd be under pressure from the start from the earlier spawning Germans
who might expand into Denmark before they do. They'd have to start early
enough to found Normandy (ie 911) and earlier than the Kievan Rus as well.
We've already got 860 for Kiev and it was they who founded it.
So maybe about 800-820 for the Norse as I've suggested..

 

[st.lucifer]

Please move this discussion to the civ thread.

 

[jessiecat]

Please move this discussion to the civ thread.

OK, please see my suggestion on the discussion thread.

 

[Zipzapzup]

Can someone please tell me the exact spawnareas of the ottomans, byzantium and arabia? I'm unsure about them.

Besides that the spawnpoints and spawnareas are translated into the const.py.

 

[jessiecat]

Can someone please tell me the exact spawnareas of the ottomans, byzantium and arabia? I'm unsure about them.

Besides that the spawnpoints and spawnareas are translated into the const.py.

Just my opinion, but they must be similiar to RFC. Constantinople for the
Byzantines, Eastern Anatolia for the Ottomans and Southern Arabia for
Arabia. I haven't seen all the cities on the map yet though and nothing so
far in Arabia (like Mecca or Medina). I don't think I've got the up-to-date
map though. Maybe st. lucifer's already picked the spots for them.
Better ask him.
BTW I posted my revised spawn dates for the Norse(820) and the
Burgundians(840). Did you see that and is the list now finalized?

 

[Zipzapzup]

Yes i saw them, but i didn't changed it by now. I'll go for it when Umarth got the DLL working.

The problem for me is, that the byzantine empire had lots of cities in the whole mediterranean sea at 500 AD, so it would be very unhistorically that they just spawn in Constantinople and settle a bit around it.

For arabia my problem is, shall they have egypt and israel under their control on spawn or shall they capture these cities. And where shall i put their starting point, since there is no Medina or Mekka on the map.

The ottomans spawn in anatolia that is clear, but shall the spawnarea cover the whole landmass of anatolia and how much of the middle east (damascus and that area).

 

[Úmarth]

Since Byzantium is there from a beginning can we not just include their units and cities in the world builder file?

Still working on that dll, by the way.

 

[jessiecat]

Yes i saw them, but i didn't changed it by now. I'll go for it when Umarth got the DLL working.

The problem for me is, that the byzantine empire had lots of cities in the whole mediterranean sea at 500 AD, so it would be very unhistorically that they just spawn in Constantinople and settle a bit around it.

For arabia my problem is, shall they have egypt and israel under their control on spawn or shall they capture these cities. And where shall i put their starting point, since there is no Medina or Mekka on the map.

The ottomans spawn in anatolia that is clear, but shall the spawnarea cover the whole landmass of anatolia and how much of the middle east (damascus and that area).

Like I said, if they spawn like they do in RFC, there shouldn't be a problem.
Like Umarth just said, the Byzantines start in their own cities. The Turks
spawn at and around Sogat and the Arabs start in Arabia and conquer the
independents like Jerusalem, Damascus etc. Simple if we stick to how its
done in RFC. Don't you agree?

 

[mitsho]

I'd say the Arabs starting in Arabia won't work. Not having the exact map in mind but they would simply have way too much to conquer, besides it doesen't exist on the mapr As I understand, the Arabs =/= "Andalusians". Right? Because that is an absolute necessity. I would say test it!

Well, what are the starting possibilities then? I'd say Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus and Jerusalem. The last one falls out, as we don't want it to be the Arab capital, right? Baghdad probably isn't/shouldn't be on the map which leaves us with Damascus and Cairo. Thinking of the "Crusades" and the place, I'd say we give the Arabs a headstart in Egypt.

But needs to be tested though.

EDIT: Just to say: Starting place = capital. We don't want that to be crappy. We thus need an "event" if possible that makes the Turkish capital Istanbul as soon as it is conquered...

m

 

[st.lucifer]

Byzantines start with Constantinople, Athens, Thessalonica, Nicaea, Adrianople, and Ephesus. I think that's the list of cities on the map - there should probably be a few more in Anatolia, but they're going to be in a powerful position as is.

Turks flip most of Anatolia upon spawning. The capital should not be Sogut - most of us agree that Sogut is an unfortunate but necessary bastardization for the RFC map - but instead, the bulk of their units should start at the 'Turk start' or 'Ottoman start' point in central Anatolia, near Ankara. Again not perfect, but better than Sogut. Damascus and the areas south of Anatolia should not flip.

'Arabia' starts out with the cities in the southeastern part of the map. Mecca, Medina, and Baghdad are all off the table - they aren't within the scope of the map, and this was a deliberate decision. I'm fine with putting the Arabian capital in Damascus; I'm also fine with putting it in Cairo. Both are pretty good options, but the Cairo one would force them to conquer most of the Levant, which would be more historical. Not that it's entirely historical to start them in Egypt... what about having Jerusalem and Acre flip, and giving them a massive army to conquer the rest? This does create the problem of making the Arab capital Jerusalem, which isn't the best city in the area, but it is central to both likely wings of the empire and should have high value for most civs.

Returning to civ start dates, I would once again like to express reservations about having Burgundy start late, and I'd like to have the Norse around from the beginning. There's a little bit of flexibility there, depending on UHV goals, but our early landscape is not going to be very populated if all of our civs start in the 800s.

 

[jessiecat]

I'd say the Arabs starting in Arabia won't work. Not having the exact map in mind but they would simply have way too much to conquer, besides it doesen't exist on the mapr As I understand, the Arabs =/= "Andalusians". Right? Because that is an absolute necessity. I would say test it!

Well, what are the starting possibilities then? I'd say Baghdad, Cairo, Damascus and Jerusalem. The last one falls out, as we don't want it to be the Arab capital, right? Baghdad probably isn't/shouldn't be on the map which leaves us with Damascus and Cairo. Thinking of the "Crusades" and the place, I'd say we give the Arabs a headstart in Egypt.

But needs to be tested though.

EDIT: Just to say: Starting place = capital. We don't want that to be crappy. We thus need an "event" if possible that makes the Turkish capital Istanbul as soon as it is conquered...

m

Sorry, but i'm afraid you've missed the fact that will be 2 Arab civs in this
mod. One will start in the Middle East in 660, the other as Al Andalus will
start in Morocco and Andalusia in 700.
As far as I see it, the earlier Arabs should start in Mecca or Medina with
a large army and go on to conquer from there. As for the rest, I think we
do it as in RFC, like I've just said, Why should this mod be different?

 

[jessiecat]

Byzantines start with Constantinople, Athens, Thessalonica, Nicaea, Adrianople, and Ephesus. I think that's the list of cities on the map - there should probably be a few more in Anatolia, but they're going to be in a powerful position as is.

Turks flip most of Anatolia upon spawning. The capital should not be Sogut - most of us agree that Sogut is an unfortunate but necessary bastardization for the RFC map - but instead, the bulk of their units should start at the 'Turk start' or 'Ottoman start' point in central Anatolia, near Ankara. Again not perfect, but better than Sogut. Damascus and the areas south of Anatolia should not flip.

'Arabia' starts out with the cities in the southeastern part of the map. Mecca, Medina, and Baghdad are all off the table - they aren't within the scope of the map, and this was a deliberate decision. I'm fine with putting the Arabian capital in Damascus; I'm also fine with putting it in Cairo. Both are pretty good options, but the Cairo one would force them to conquer most of the Levant, which would be more historical. Not that it's entirely historical to start them in Egypt... what about having Jerusalem and Acre flip, and giving them a massive army to conquer the rest? This does create the problem of making the Arab capital Jerusalem, which isn't the best city in the area, but it is central to both likely wings of the empire and should have high value for most civs.

Returning to civ start dates, I would once again like to express reservations about having Burgundy start late, and I'd like to have the Norse around from the beginning. There's a little bit of flexibility there, depending on UHV goals, but our early landscape is not going to be very populated if all of our civs start in the 800s.

Sorry about the double post. You just beat me to it.

I agree with your view on tthe Arab start. If it's not Mecca or Medina,
them it must be Damascus with Jerusalem and the Levant to be conquered
or maybe they could flip in a couple of turns. Historically, most of that area
fell without a fight anyway.They could easily switch their capitol to Cairo later.

You're right too about the Ottoman start, I'm fine with the area you
designated on the map. Same with the Byzantines.
They'd just start off in their own cities, wouldn't they?

I beg to differ on the Burgundy start. 840 is historically accurate and they
could have a strong south spawn to prevent them being swamped by the
Germans and the French.And there is a gap in the list between 800 and 860.

As far as the Norse goes, I originally proposed 700 but people objected and
said it should be 900. So if you want it early, that's fine with me.