You can't switch to neighboring civs. This is in base RFC as well.
RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread
- Thread starter st.lucifer
- Start date
You can't switch to neighboring civs. This is in base RFC as well.
sedna17
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,091
I base RFC you can't switch to a Civ that rises "too soon" after you. However, this is not based on time but on Civ order. That is, normally you can't switch to the very next civ to rise. Normally, that order is the same as the order in which they spawned, but by moving Spain (and Moscow) later, it sort of broke that model. Thus, Cordoba can't switch to Spain because Spain still comes directly after Cordoba in the list of Civs (even though it doesn't come right after in time). Probably easiest just to change the way that calculation is done (and make it a set time period, like "no switching within the first 50 turns).
Michael Vick
#1
Yes, that sounds good. 
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
OK. I just got the 3 UHVs for Cordoba. It wasn't very difficult but a couple of issues arose.
1. The first condition is still easy though I only got Cordoba to 12 this time. But it was enough.
2. The second condition is surprisingly easy if you beeline to Philosophy and Patronage.
3. The third condition was easy enough except for the stability problem. Why has the foriegn stability become so bad? Is it just having a different religion? About 1340 Valencia went indy on me and was captured by Spain. Both Spain and Portugal were at war with me after that and the only solution was to buy them off with techs. Even then my foriegn stabilty was only 1 star. What got my stability restored before the end was defence agreements with the Ottomans, the Byzantines, the Arabs and Venice. The religion penalty has just got too strong now. I could never have survived much past 1500 without converting to Catholicism. So much for any player who wants a long game.
4. What is with these enemy infiltrators? No matter what I do, I can't stop them. And of course I can't build them either. Its really frustrating when they trash your improvements faster than you can repair them. Why does the AI spend so much time on sabotage?
5. As I suggested in the other thread, I think Tanjah needs to be stronger. It should start with 2 archers and 2 Berber cav. IMO.
6. A word about the Indy cities. Moving Toledo was a big mistake I think. Now its in Cordobas BFC so it automatically flips really early (about 900). When it offered to join me I just razed it, so creating more room for Cordoba to expand its cultural borders. Spain founded Madrid to the east and became its capital (not very historical that).
7. I partly agree with the suggestions made by Michael Vick. Zaragoza, Pamplona, Cadiz, and Toledo should be where he suggests. Though Madrid should be 1-2 tiles east of Toledo if we even want it at all. We need to keep Leon and Burgos roughly where they are now. But if Cadiz moves 1 tile south then Tanjah should not be moved from its present location.
A short but enjoyable game despite the instability, the wrong location of Toledo and those damn infiltrators.
1. The first condition is still easy though I only got Cordoba to 12 this time. But it was enough.
2. The second condition is surprisingly easy if you beeline to Philosophy and Patronage.
3. The third condition was easy enough except for the stability problem. Why has the foriegn stability become so bad? Is it just having a different religion? About 1340 Valencia went indy on me and was captured by Spain. Both Spain and Portugal were at war with me after that and the only solution was to buy them off with techs. Even then my foriegn stabilty was only 1 star. What got my stability restored before the end was defence agreements with the Ottomans, the Byzantines, the Arabs and Venice. The religion penalty has just got too strong now. I could never have survived much past 1500 without converting to Catholicism. So much for any player who wants a long game.
4. What is with these enemy infiltrators? No matter what I do, I can't stop them. And of course I can't build them either. Its really frustrating when they trash your improvements faster than you can repair them. Why does the AI spend so much time on sabotage?
5. As I suggested in the other thread, I think Tanjah needs to be stronger. It should start with 2 archers and 2 Berber cav. IMO.
6. A word about the Indy cities. Moving Toledo was a big mistake I think. Now its in Cordobas BFC so it automatically flips really early (about 900). When it offered to join me I just razed it, so creating more room for Cordoba to expand its cultural borders. Spain founded Madrid to the east and became its capital (not very historical that).
7. I partly agree with the suggestions made by Michael Vick. Zaragoza, Pamplona, Cadiz, and Toledo should be where he suggests. Though Madrid should be 1-2 tiles east of Toledo if we even want it at all. We need to keep Leon and Burgos roughly where they are now. But if Cadiz moves 1 tile south then Tanjah should not be moved from its present location.
A short but enjoyable game despite the instability, the wrong location of Toledo and those damn infiltrators.
sedna17
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,091
OK. I just got the 3 UHVs for Cordoba. It wasn't very difficult but a couple of issues arose.
1. The first condition is still easy though I only got Cordoba to 12 this time. But it was enough.
2. The second condition is surprisingly easy if you beeline to Philosophy and Patronage.
3. The third condition was easy enough except for the stability problem. Why has the foriegn stability become so bad? Is it just having a different religion? About 1340 Valencia went indy on me and was captured by Spain. Both Spain and Portugal were at war with me after that and the only solution was to buy them off with techs. Even then my foriegn stabilty was only 1 star. What got my stability restored before the end was defence agreements with the Ottomans, the Byzantines, the Arabs and Venice. The religion penalty has just got too strong now. I could never have survived much past 1500 without converting to Catholicism. So much for any player who wants a long game.
4. What is with these enemy infiltrators? No matter what I do, I can't stop them. And of course I can't build them either. Its really frustrating when they trash your improvements faster than you can repair them. Why does the AI spend so much time on sabotage?
5. As I suggested in the other thread, I think Tanjah needs to be stronger. It should start with 2 archers and 2 Berber cav. IMO.
6. A word about the Indy cities. Moving Toledo was a big mistake I think. Now its in Cordobas BFC so it automatically flips really early (about 900). When it offered to join me I just razed it, so creating more room for Cordoba to expand its cultural borders. Spain founded Madrid to the east and became its capital (not very historical that).
7. I partly agree with the suggestions made by Michael Vick. Zaragoza, Pamplona, Cadiz, and Toledo should be where he suggests. Though Madrid should be 1-2 tiles east of Toledo if we even want it at all. We need to keep Leon and Burgos roughly where they are now. But if Cadiz moves 1 tile south then Tanjah should not be moved from its present location.
A short but enjoyable game despite the instability, the wrong location of Toledo and those damn infiltrators.
Great, glad you enjoyed it. We can make some city position moves along the lines you guys suggest. To address a few points:
3) I found it difficult to get open borders as Cordoba. Lots of contacts with few open borders will hurt you, especially with a few wars thrown in. Dunno if that was your situation though.
4) What do you mean you can't build spies? I agree the AI spends a lot on espionage, but that's generically true. Remember that Spain's Unique Power is +2 espionage points per city (although it doesn't display correctly on all screens, it's getting counted). This UP gives them lots of espionage points to spend on hurting you -- what can I say? If it proves to be just too frustrating for the human player perhaps we'll have to change that UP.
As for the capitol... I am aware that Madrid did not start off as the capitol. However, the general pattern of RFC is often starting at the "modern" capitol site. The Franks start as Paris (not Aachen), the Norse start at Copenhaven, the Portuguese start at Lisbon. With Spain starting in 1085, Madrid isn't the "correct" capitol to begin with, but it is the correct capitol for over half of Spain's turns (starting in 1561).
Oh, also, it would require a large re-write of the rise and fall code to have a pre-existing city (i.e. Toledo) become the capitol.
operafantom
Chieftain
And in the future is it possible that Hungarians will not start in Debrecen but Buda?
ius_iurandi
Chieftain
This is the first of what will be a multi-edited post on the Byzantine game I'm playing. I'm not necessarily going for a UHV, just trying to see how long I can survive, and if Byzantium is correctly balanced.
Currently, I'm at 740AD, and I have a couple observations to make:
1.) These production, research, and growth penalties are really insane. I'd rather see my cities start smaller, with fewer movable units, no tile improvements, etc, and slightly reduced penalties, along the lines of what was done to France. I know the game is designed to engender a historically accurate demise of Byzantium, but let's not forget that, under Justinian and Belisarius, the Empire regained most of Italy and even southern Spain. I'd rather see a civilization that is more dynamic: capable of building up great strength, and surviving into the late game, especially if it manages to garner friendly relations with civs like Bulgaria and the Rus. Maybe a couple more early plagues, and some even stronger barb assaults could balance this. Further balancing a stronger Byzantium could be a true Turkish juggernaut. Let's face it: Basil the Bulgar Slayer killed off that civilization before 1050AD. The Byzantine Empire fell because of the "Terrible Turks", and a wayward fourth Crusade. Let's see the Turks have enough firepower to make it to Vienna, and let's see the Empire be strong enough to offer a formidable obstacle.
2.) Could Alexandria be considered "the core of the Empire"? Having it secede is really annoying, especially since, again, in the early part of this mod, Byzantium reconquered almost all of north africa. Honestly, I'd rather lose Sinope, Aleppo, Antioch, Tarsus and Ceasaria to revolt than Alexandria - and it was just as "Greek" as any of those cities.
EDIT 1: N.B. - If one of the ideas of gimping the Empire is to prevent wonder-building, I don't think that's really working. Maybe instead start the Byzantines with as few techs as possible, and just move wonders back in general. I basically always see the shrine of uppsala in Constantinople: Maybe push it back, and give Constantinople a bit more production, to remove the desparate need for the shrine?
Also, I think you might want to lower the foreign stability penalties for the Byzantines. They were surrounded by enemies on all sides for basically their entire history (see: relations with the "allied" Rus for examples), but the military, us-against-them mentality of the self styled "Roman Empire" helped forge a _more_ stable society in the face of adversity. To counteract this (and all the other power/stability enhancing features I'm proposing) make the quick-fix slow stability decay permanent - but only for Byzantium or, at least, ramp it up for Byzantium.
EDIT 2:
Minor Note: Cataphracts are wonderfully useful, especially if you can get them out before the Arabs get guisarmes (not hard to do). They were, however, the backbone of the Byzantine Army for most of its history. Maybe give them one more strength and take away one or both first strikes, encouraging the player to build them almost exclusively, and better reflect the theme system's army composition. Or, simply leave them as they are, and like Conquistadors in RFC, let them fortify.
Major Note: Well, with stability as it is, I basically can't have revolution in 900 AD without losing Antioch. But I don't think this is necessarily bad. As 3Miro noted, internal instability was a part of Byzantium's decline. I'd say, _increase_ the penalty for switching civics as the Byzantines, but start them with the actual civics of the empire (or a decent approximation), at least in three sections. I'm thinking Divine Monarchy, State Religion, and Religious Law(?). These should fit ell with Serfdom/Free Peasantry (which they had in practice depends on who you ask), Guilds/Mercantilism, and Vassalage/Imperialism.
Re: Wonders
Build order for Constantinople: Shrine of Uppsala, Monastery of Cluny, Workboat, Marco Polo's Embassy. Epheseus also built the Round Church: It's not yet 1000AD. It's not unbalancing the game, since Constantinople has no production, techs take forever to research, and the wonders have taken 500 years to build in Constantinople. But I'd rather get fewer wonders, and still be able to survive. Again, Constantinople definitely needs more production, if it doesn't always get Uppsala. Like another hill and copper/stone/marble (plains hills). Maybe fix the then lack of food by changing the fish to a clam and a crab. In that case, the other mineral could just be two plains-hills with forests, and change the wheat for barley. I'm not trying to just make Constantinople "totally l33t" - I just want to keep the food the same, but increase the production. Even if production penalties are decreased. Make Bureaucracy more viable for a nation famous for it.
EDIT 3: I just lost my first UHV condition, i.e. - make Constantinople the most cultured and populous city in the world by 1000AD. I'm pretty certain that I won on size with 14 (building a settler, though), and lost on culture. To be clear, My build order for Constantinople was Shrine of Uppsala, Monastery of Cluny, Workboat, Marco Polo's Embassy, smokehouse. That's all I had time to complete in 500 years. Now, it's fair to say that I could have built a hippodrome in there and won my UHV, or even could've just built culture. That said, I feel like it's unfair for a Byzantine player to be forced to go: Shrine, Monastery, Hippodrome, Workboat, MPE, Culture _every_ time, just to out-culture Rome. Especially since, in this version of the game, I haven't spent a single turn in anarchy. Possible solutions: Rome needs less culture, Constantinople needs more production as noted before (more buildings, more freedom), Byzantine production penalties need to be lowered. I'd recommend the latter two in conjuction, since they'll also fix other Byzantine problems.
Furthermore, I am playing on Monarch, so we can basically consider completing any of the UHV conditions impossible on Emperor (I'm assuming ramping it up would force Constantinople to also pitch in on building defenders.)
Currently, I'm at 740AD, and I have a couple observations to make:
1.) These production, research, and growth penalties are really insane. I'd rather see my cities start smaller, with fewer movable units, no tile improvements, etc, and slightly reduced penalties, along the lines of what was done to France. I know the game is designed to engender a historically accurate demise of Byzantium, but let's not forget that, under Justinian and Belisarius, the Empire regained most of Italy and even southern Spain. I'd rather see a civilization that is more dynamic: capable of building up great strength, and surviving into the late game, especially if it manages to garner friendly relations with civs like Bulgaria and the Rus. Maybe a couple more early plagues, and some even stronger barb assaults could balance this. Further balancing a stronger Byzantium could be a true Turkish juggernaut. Let's face it: Basil the Bulgar Slayer killed off that civilization before 1050AD. The Byzantine Empire fell because of the "Terrible Turks", and a wayward fourth Crusade. Let's see the Turks have enough firepower to make it to Vienna, and let's see the Empire be strong enough to offer a formidable obstacle.
2.) Could Alexandria be considered "the core of the Empire"? Having it secede is really annoying, especially since, again, in the early part of this mod, Byzantium reconquered almost all of north africa. Honestly, I'd rather lose Sinope, Aleppo, Antioch, Tarsus and Ceasaria to revolt than Alexandria - and it was just as "Greek" as any of those cities.
EDIT 1: N.B. - If one of the ideas of gimping the Empire is to prevent wonder-building, I don't think that's really working. Maybe instead start the Byzantines with as few techs as possible, and just move wonders back in general. I basically always see the shrine of uppsala in Constantinople: Maybe push it back, and give Constantinople a bit more production, to remove the desparate need for the shrine?
Also, I think you might want to lower the foreign stability penalties for the Byzantines. They were surrounded by enemies on all sides for basically their entire history (see: relations with the "allied" Rus for examples), but the military, us-against-them mentality of the self styled "Roman Empire" helped forge a _more_ stable society in the face of adversity. To counteract this (and all the other power/stability enhancing features I'm proposing) make the quick-fix slow stability decay permanent - but only for Byzantium or, at least, ramp it up for Byzantium.
EDIT 2:
Minor Note: Cataphracts are wonderfully useful, especially if you can get them out before the Arabs get guisarmes (not hard to do). They were, however, the backbone of the Byzantine Army for most of its history. Maybe give them one more strength and take away one or both first strikes, encouraging the player to build them almost exclusively, and better reflect the theme system's army composition. Or, simply leave them as they are, and like Conquistadors in RFC, let them fortify.
Major Note: Well, with stability as it is, I basically can't have revolution in 900 AD without losing Antioch. But I don't think this is necessarily bad. As 3Miro noted, internal instability was a part of Byzantium's decline. I'd say, _increase_ the penalty for switching civics as the Byzantines, but start them with the actual civics of the empire (or a decent approximation), at least in three sections. I'm thinking Divine Monarchy, State Religion, and Religious Law(?). These should fit ell with Serfdom/Free Peasantry (which they had in practice depends on who you ask), Guilds/Mercantilism, and Vassalage/Imperialism.
Re: Wonders
Build order for Constantinople: Shrine of Uppsala, Monastery of Cluny, Workboat, Marco Polo's Embassy. Epheseus also built the Round Church: It's not yet 1000AD. It's not unbalancing the game, since Constantinople has no production, techs take forever to research, and the wonders have taken 500 years to build in Constantinople. But I'd rather get fewer wonders, and still be able to survive. Again, Constantinople definitely needs more production, if it doesn't always get Uppsala. Like another hill and copper/stone/marble (plains hills). Maybe fix the then lack of food by changing the fish to a clam and a crab. In that case, the other mineral could just be two plains-hills with forests, and change the wheat for barley. I'm not trying to just make Constantinople "totally l33t" - I just want to keep the food the same, but increase the production. Even if production penalties are decreased. Make Bureaucracy more viable for a nation famous for it.
EDIT 3: I just lost my first UHV condition, i.e. - make Constantinople the most cultured and populous city in the world by 1000AD. I'm pretty certain that I won on size with 14 (building a settler, though), and lost on culture. To be clear, My build order for Constantinople was Shrine of Uppsala, Monastery of Cluny, Workboat, Marco Polo's Embassy, smokehouse. That's all I had time to complete in 500 years. Now, it's fair to say that I could have built a hippodrome in there and won my UHV, or even could've just built culture. That said, I feel like it's unfair for a Byzantine player to be forced to go: Shrine, Monastery, Hippodrome, Workboat, MPE, Culture _every_ time, just to out-culture Rome. Especially since, in this version of the game, I haven't spent a single turn in anarchy. Possible solutions: Rome needs less culture, Constantinople needs more production as noted before (more buildings, more freedom), Byzantine production penalties need to be lowered. I'd recommend the latter two in conjuction, since they'll also fix other Byzantine problems.
Furthermore, I am playing on Monarch, so we can basically consider completing any of the UHV conditions impossible on Emperor (I'm assuming ramping it up would force Constantinople to also pitch in on building defenders.)
sedna17
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,091
@Operfantom: I had no objects to moving the Hungarian spawn to Buda. Do you have a preference for a particular square?
@ius_iurandi: Thanks for your report. I haven't had the patience to play a Byzantine game for a while so I look forward to the rest of your thoughts. I definitely agree (and I think others do too) that we should lower the research/production bonuses.
@ius_iurandi: Thanks for your report. I haven't had the patience to play a Byzantine game for a while so I look forward to the rest of your thoughts. I definitely agree (and I think others do too) that we should lower the research/production bonuses.
3Miro
Deity
1. The demise of the Byzantines was not due only to the Turks and Crusaders (you can add the Mongols to the list as well). There were many issues with internal stability. Bulgaria managed to regain independence due to those instabilities long before the forth crusade. Byzantine demise should come from internal instability as well as foreign factors.
This is just a note, the penalties that are currently given might be too harsh, I should play a game to see.
2. Increasing the "core" of the Byzantine empire also increases the instability. If someone holds a city in your core territory, the penalty is rather large. We should be careful with this.
- Byzantines should be allowed to build wonders. With huge penalty perhaps, but allowed otherwise.
- We can start the Byzantines with some expansion civic to help them against all enemies from all sides.
This is just a note, the penalties that are currently given might be too harsh, I should play a game to see.
2. Increasing the "core" of the Byzantine empire also increases the instability. If someone holds a city in your core territory, the penalty is rather large. We should be careful with this.
- Byzantines should be allowed to build wonders. With huge penalty perhaps, but allowed otherwise.
- We can start the Byzantines with some expansion civic to help them against all enemies from all sides.
operafantom
Chieftain
The capital city (Budapest) exists from 1872, there had been three settlements: Buda, Óbuda (means 'Old Buda') and Pest before, and Budapest is Buda+Pest in fact. I mean if that was not clear what's the connection between Buda and Budapest. Buda was the most important city of the country in the history. The royal court was here for a long time. After the capture of Buda (1541) started the Ottomans to create their first vilajet in Hungary, and the most important city to retake in 1680s was also Buda, because it was the capital of the country. In fact Debrecen was the capital only for a short period(months) in 1849 during the war for freedom against Habsburgs, and only because the Austrian soldiers captured Pest. All I want to say is: the capital of Hungary was Buda, not Debrecen.
EDIT: And it is today also under the name of Budapest.
EDIT: And it is today also under the name of Budapest.
Michael Vick
#1
In the previous version I always switched the capitol to Toledo then Madrid when playing as Spain. I even went through Cordoba as according to the history of the Reconquista. LOL the whole historical aspect is important to me, that's why I play RFC. I'd appreciate it if we could have Toledo be the capital.
I think it would be best to leave Madrid up to the player to found. This way there is that what-if scenario of Spain never having moved their capitol. If that's not good then there's always the fact that I've seen Cordoba found Cuenca many times, and with Madrid's new position that includes the iron, they are even more likely to settle there. Leon needs to go 1 tile North because I feel that's more accurate and it can't come into contact with the River Duero. Burgos... well... I just don't like the idea of the inclusion of Burgos, there are no resources near it and it would mess me up if i ever wanted to found Bilbao. Plus if we keep it in the same location it would be on the Duero. Oh, do you guys at least agree with the changes made to the terrain?
What about the resources? (Not included in the screenshots, I moved the copper in granada 1 tile North to avoid getting settled on)
@Jessie, I want Cadiz to go South because it allows Seville to be founded and get big, and also it IS to the South of the Guadalquivir in real life. Tangier should go 1 tile North because of its real life location and many reasons I've named in some other thread... If Cadiz and Tangier are close together like this I know that they'd both take hits in growth and productivity, however, I think the upsides are more considerable. Say for example they are each controlled by a different civ, this makes for cultural if not military competition for the resources and control of the Strait of Gibraltar. Tangier switched hands many times for its strategic location on the Northern tip of Morocco. Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and Al-Andalus all at one time occupied Tangier, all for its location. Think of how significant it would be if one civ controlled Tangier and all the traffic above it, all the others would need to go to that civ for open borders or declare war if they wanted access to the med sea. Whoever controlled Cadiz would definitely be getting in on the action.
Oh, do you guys at least agree with the changes made to the terrain in the Madrid area?
What about the resources? (Not included in the screenshots, I moved the copper in granada 1 tile North to avoid getting settled on)
ius_iurandi
Chieftain
Rest of the Byzantine post is contained above, but I have another couple notes from a friend playing other games on the new version.
1.) Norse UHV is very, very close to impossible. Open borders with the Cordobans and Byzantines (Ocean tiles in the Black Sea) is hard enough. It takes almost AnotherPacifist level skill to found all those cities that quickly, though. Basically you need to: Move archer and settler to Edinburgh, pre-empt barb city, move swordsman to Toulouse, waste barb battles, move two berserkers to Dublin, take it after barbs soften it up. Then get open borders with the Cordobans, and get a settler to Sicily. You only start with one galley, and getting all of this by 1050 is quite a trick on Monarch. Then you have a couple hundred years to explore the Atlantic and get through Constantinople. It shouldn't be easy, certainly....but do we want it to be this hard? Oh. I forgot about the city in Iceland.
I've been thinking, though...this whole mod would make more sense if it started later in history, and gameplay would be easier if the Middle Ages lasted longer. I mean, Burgundy spawns about 60 years after it was assimilated into the Frankish Empire. A Unifed Germany exists way too early, or at least doesn't really have the time to fall, rise, and become a great power again. The Byzantines start in 500AD, and get smaller from there - what happened to the Golden age of Justinian? Spain and Moscow already got moved back into the land of long load times: why not push back the whole mod?
1.) Norse UHV is very, very close to impossible. Open borders with the Cordobans and Byzantines (Ocean tiles in the Black Sea) is hard enough. It takes almost AnotherPacifist level skill to found all those cities that quickly, though. Basically you need to: Move archer and settler to Edinburgh, pre-empt barb city, move swordsman to Toulouse, waste barb battles, move two berserkers to Dublin, take it after barbs soften it up. Then get open borders with the Cordobans, and get a settler to Sicily. You only start with one galley, and getting all of this by 1050 is quite a trick on Monarch. Then you have a couple hundred years to explore the Atlantic and get through Constantinople. It shouldn't be easy, certainly....but do we want it to be this hard? Oh. I forgot about the city in Iceland.
I've been thinking, though...this whole mod would make more sense if it started later in history, and gameplay would be easier if the Middle Ages lasted longer. I mean, Burgundy spawns about 60 years after it was assimilated into the Frankish Empire. A Unifed Germany exists way too early, or at least doesn't really have the time to fall, rise, and become a great power again. The Byzantines start in 500AD, and get smaller from there - what happened to the Golden age of Justinian? Spain and Moscow already got moved back into the land of long load times: why not push back the whole mod?
Wessel V1
Emperor
I don't agree on that point. It's very possible to move through Cordoban lands, by war declaration. One or two supporting ships can easily hold off their ships for 2 turns, and after that you don't really have to worry about them anymore. Byzantium will almost always open borders, if you give them 10 gold as a gift. And, it might be wise to convert to no religion for a turn.
Hi
1rst post, so let me start by congratulating you all for the awesome work you've done on this mod.
Otherwise i don't agree either on the Norse uhv. I've tested a few options and taking your first galley directly to Sicily means you don't even have to defend it because the Cordobans probably won't have built a trireme yet (can't be sure but tested this twice already).
Both times Byzantium opened borders immediately too, because i had no religion yet, didn't even have to gift them the 10 gold.
As for the other cities, founding your capital 1 SW from Copenhaguen (Roskilde) lets you hook up the copper and pig quickly which speeds up settler building.
The only thing i find is a bit of a shame about the Norse UHVs is that, if you want to complete them, you never get to build the Shrine of Uppsala, there's just not enough time.
1rst post, so let me start by congratulating you all for the awesome work you've done on this mod.
Otherwise i don't agree either on the Norse uhv. I've tested a few options and taking your first galley directly to Sicily means you don't even have to defend it because the Cordobans probably won't have built a trireme yet (can't be sure but tested this twice already).
Both times Byzantium opened borders immediately too, because i had no religion yet, didn't even have to gift them the 10 gold.
As for the other cities, founding your capital 1 SW from Copenhaguen (Roskilde) lets you hook up the copper and pig quickly which speeds up settler building.
The only thing i find is a bit of a shame about the Norse UHVs is that, if you want to complete them, you never get to build the Shrine of Uppsala, there's just not enough time.
Downloading the new version, time to post my feedback on the 5 May version:
Norse:
1 UHV: Getting all the cities in 1050 is hard, i founded the city in Sicily in 1056... need to practice a little to get it faster. But its good to have sopme challenging UHVs.
2 UHV: I had all ocean tiles in 1122, beeline to Optics is the key (and no state religion to get open borders with byzanz). But the vicoty conditions says NO, screenshot in the spoiler.
3 UHV: razing 10 cities will be fun, but i stopped playing when i got the bug with the 2nd UHV.
Sweden:
No problems at all, easy UHVs. I just find the "not loose a city" UHV a bit boring.
I ended at almost no open borders. Half the world declared in 1700 at 2 UHV, then i had to attack my only friend poland to get the cities for 3rd UHV. With defensive pacts and vasalls, i was at war with almost everyone.
Byzanz:
Start: Money lasts only to research 2 techs, then you are at 0% or 10% research for a long time. You realy need to disband some troops, else its not playable. Maybe less soldiers and a few workers at the start. Cyrene is a useless city, i gifted it to Arabia as soon as they spawned. (Lost Alexandria to the Arabs in a war, but in the long run that was a good thing for me)
City upkeed was laughable low (only a few coins) but civic upkeed is the killer for early byzanz.
1 UHV: highest pop is no problem, highest culture is a bit harder. Founding Knights Hospitaler for some additional culture was very useful, but i still had to build culture for a few rounds to beat rome. (built almost only culture buildings: hippodrome, manor house, monument, cathedral, shrine of uppsala)
2 UHV: Easy, i built manor houses and courthouses everywhere and was always stable, worst was shaky at -3. Barbarian lancers were a bit of trouble, especialy with the huge production penalty, even my heroic epic city Ephesus needed 4 turns for a cataphract.
3 UHV: at about 1380 i stopped research and got to 42k cash. (Genua had 25k, Rome 10k). I founded medici banks, second Great Merchant did a mission for 2500 gold.
Norse:
1 UHV: Getting all the cities in 1050 is hard, i founded the city in Sicily in 1056... need to practice a little to get it faster. But its good to have sopme challenging UHVs.
2 UHV: I had all ocean tiles in 1122, beeline to Optics is the key (and no state religion to get open borders with byzanz). But the vicoty conditions says NO, screenshot in the spoiler.
Spoiler :
3 UHV: razing 10 cities will be fun, but i stopped playing when i got the bug with the 2nd UHV.
Sweden:
No problems at all, easy UHVs. I just find the "not loose a city" UHV a bit boring.
I ended at almost no open borders. Half the world declared in 1700 at 2 UHV, then i had to attack my only friend poland to get the cities for 3rd UHV. With defensive pacts and vasalls, i was at war with almost everyone.
Byzanz:
Start: Money lasts only to research 2 techs, then you are at 0% or 10% research for a long time. You realy need to disband some troops, else its not playable. Maybe less soldiers and a few workers at the start. Cyrene is a useless city, i gifted it to Arabia as soon as they spawned. (Lost Alexandria to the Arabs in a war, but in the long run that was a good thing for me)
City upkeed was laughable low (only a few coins) but civic upkeed is the killer for early byzanz.
1 UHV: highest pop is no problem, highest culture is a bit harder. Founding Knights Hospitaler for some additional culture was very useful, but i still had to build culture for a few rounds to beat rome. (built almost only culture buildings: hippodrome, manor house, monument, cathedral, shrine of uppsala)
2 UHV: Easy, i built manor houses and courthouses everywhere and was always stable, worst was shaky at -3. Barbarian lancers were a bit of trouble, especialy with the huge production penalty, even my heroic epic city Ephesus needed 4 turns for a cataphract.
3 UHV: at about 1380 i stopped research and got to 42k cash. (Genua had 25k, Rome 10k). I founded medici banks, second Great Merchant did a mission for 2500 gold.
merijn_v1
Black Belt
I would say that the first is doable. 6 years (2 turns) isn't so hard.
Half the world also attacks me when I win the second UHV. Even sometimes my best friends. Is this a bug or is it supposed to be like this?
sedna17
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,091
Okay, so we've heard from a bunch of people on the Norse UHVs: currently the vote looks like 5-2 in favor of the UHVs being possible, though difficult. Thanks for the bug report on the 2nd UHV -- I found a simple indentation in Victory.py which is responsible for that.
Welcome to the forums, agave. Glad you enjoy the mod.
Welcome to the forums, agave. Glad you enjoy the mod.
ius_iurandi
Chieftain
Apparently my friend was slightly exaggerating the trials and tribulations of his Norse game.
Michael Vick
#1
Yes, Yes, the UHV is hard, we'll change it, now back to the topic of Iberia.
Can these changes be in the next version?
In the previous version I always switched the capitol to Toledo then Madrid when playing as Spain. I even went through Cordoba as according to the history of the Reconquista. LOL the whole historical aspect is important to me, that's why I play RFC. I'd appreciate it if we could have Toledo be the capital.
Oh, do you guys at least agree with the changes made to the terrain?
What about the resources? (Not included in the screenshots, I moved the copper in granada 1 tile North to avoid getting settled on)
@Jessie, I want Cadiz to go South because it allows Seville to be founded and get big, and also it IS to the South of the Guadalquivir in real life. Tangier should go 1 tile North because of its real life location and many reasons I've named in some other thread... If Cadiz and Tangier are close together like this I know that they'd both take hits in growth and productivity, however, I think the upsides are more considerable. Say for example they are each controlled by a different civ, this makes for cultural if not military competition for the resources and control of the Strait of Gibraltar. Tangier switched hands many times for its strategic location on the Northern tip of Morocco. Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and Al-Andalus all at one time occupied Tangier, all for its location. Think of how significant it would be if one civ controlled Tangier and all the traffic above it, all the others would need to go to that civ for open borders or declare war if they wanted access to the med sea. Whoever controlled Cadiz would definitely be getting in on the action.
Oh, do you guys at least agree with the changes made to the terrain in the Madrid area?
What about the resources? (Not included in the screenshots, I moved the copper in granada 1 tile North to avoid getting settled on)
Can these changes be in the next version?
You guys finally convinced me to stop lurking and register, so this is my first post.
Just finished a Venice game, which i won by UHV (about 1400). It was viceroy (i know!) but it still seemed surprisingly easy to expand slowly into the balkans, italy and the med. Aside from with the indies, the only wars i got in was with Bulgaria (pretty uneventful) and the Arabs (to take Cyprus in my last turn). To fit with the historical feel of the mod and to give the player more to do, how about having a UHV direct them to attack Byzantium?
A point about the UHVs; one of them asks to get 8 luxury resources. I ended up achieving this unexpectedly since five of my luxury resources were in fact the same thing: wine! Surely multiples of the same resource should only count once for the purposes of this challenge? I was expecting to have to secure eight different resources which would have taken a lot longer.
Just finished a Venice game, which i won by UHV (about 1400). It was viceroy (i know!) but it still seemed surprisingly easy to expand slowly into the balkans, italy and the med. Aside from with the indies, the only wars i got in was with Bulgaria (pretty uneventful) and the Arabs (to take Cyprus in my last turn). To fit with the historical feel of the mod and to give the player more to do, how about having a UHV direct them to attack Byzantium?
A point about the UHVs; one of them asks to get 8 luxury resources. I ended up achieving this unexpectedly since five of my luxury resources were in fact the same thing: wine! Surely multiples of the same resource should only count once for the purposes of this challenge? I was expecting to have to secure eight different resources which would have taken a lot longer.
