Michael Vick
#1
I see, well I'm not much of an expert on the Geography of the Netherlands, I'll assume you're right, but a tech that would allow workers to clear or drain mud/marsh, that would be good.
RFC Europe playtesting feedback thread
- Thread starter st.lucifer
- Start date
ius_iurandi
Chieftain
After reading the following post by Feyaria, I decided to go back to the drawing board and play another Byzantine game with his advice in mind.
Let me give you the rundown on where I stand so far:
I spent the first turn adopting Orthodoxy as a state religion. After that, I had all my cities build walls except Constantinople (Shrine of Uppsala); Nicea, Athinai, Thessloniki, and Epheseus (worker); Alexandria (Trireme); Antioch (Courthouse). Jerusalem was building two workers and then research, Tyre 1 worker and research, and Cyrene just research. The first tech I research is engineering: I focus on getting Castles everywhere for Defense + Economy. Also, I deleted all troops I deemed expendable.
After the Castles are up, I focus (with a few exceptions) on getting Courthouses and Manor Houses everywhere, as per Feyaria's suggestion.
This doesn't really work out for me. Even though, because I gifted Arabia Tyre, Jerusalem, and Cyrene after they founded Damascus, I had +2 relations with them (they eventually even adopted orthodoxy), even though I vassalize Bulgaria, foreign stability is at two stars. Expansion is also at two stars. In the hundred years from 856 on, I lost Antioch, Tarsus, and Aleppo to independant revolution. I am at about -30 Unstable. Didn't even have a civic changing revolution, and probably won't until I get another vassal (I figure +8 from vassalage will be worth the anarchy).
Anyway, though I can probably complete the UHV at this stage through ample use of Cataphracts, I feel like playing a Byzantine game is simply not a fun experience for the player: "Stave off collapse by using a specific build order in Feyaria's strategy guide so you can complete the UHV before the Turkish kill you" isn't really an engaging tag-line.
I do believe, however, that the Byzantine game will need fewer tweaks than I thought to be a really enjoyable experience. Here's my set of solutions at the moment (to be used in conjuction):
1.) Reduce the production penalties for the Byzantines:
I don't even think the research penalties are all that bad - with a little help from the Round Church, I had Patronage in the 800s, and a well rounded list of techs (with a little more help from my Bulgarian vassal). But the production gimp is just out of hand. It takes between two and four dozen turns to build a settler in my better cities. Forget responding to military developments as they happen - and keeping more than a couple units in border cities can be a real drag on the economy.
2.) Increase the amount of production for Constantinople:
With city growth and overall maintenance penalties as they are for the Byzantines, Constantinople has to be the lifeblood of the Byzantine economy - currently, it doesn't have enough production to be the city it needs to be without the Shrine of Uppsala. My strongest preference is that the Shrine be moved back a tech or two and that Constantinople be naturally granted a couple more hills and/or resources to keep it's exact growth potential while gaining production, but if you want to keep the shrine where it is, I suggest another plains hill's worth of hammers, anyway.
(N.B. - Yes, I realize that 1 and 2 have overlapping effects: The production penalties for the Byzantines are so severe, however, I think both might be warranted. Besides, this would allow Constantinople to become even more vital to the Empire, and an even more attractive for foreign nations to capture. I think the latter part of that spells fun when this game goes multiplayer.)
3.) Reduce stability penalties for Byzantium.
This doesn't need to be tremendously adjusted - the player should be allowed to change a couple civics and adopt a state religion without hemorrhaging cities, however. Also, this buff would be hedged by a decreasing usefulness in the UP, so a marginal boost shouldn't completely change the lifespan of the Byzantines - just reduce the amount of independants. Actually, I think a more than marginal boost is warranted - but let me explain.
Right now, the Byzantine Empire is just big, as opposed to powerful. It cannot project force (forget about pulling off the historical Empire of Justinian), cannot expand naturally (like founding a couple more cities in Greece and Western Anatolia), and cannot recover from major setback (if the Fourth Crusade happened in this game, Boniface of Montferrat would probably be fighting the Turks for control of Nicea and the Venetians for Greece in 1453.) With the goal of creating a Byzantine empire that is actually powerful, I heavily considered adding reduced research and city growth penalties to the list above, as well as urging even further reduced overall production and stability penalties.
The obvious downside of creating a powerful Byzantium is that making such a large civilization easy to play could destroy the Balance of Power in Eastern Europe. But I think a powerful Byzantium is desirable for both historical and gameplay reasons. There is an easy solution for the BoP that also jibes with other suggestions made on this forum. The Byzantine Empire shouldn't be artificially weak - other civs around it simply need to be stronger, and hate it more. Five suggestions on rebalancing the game after adjusting the Byzantines follow. I don't just think they'll allow for a more interesting Byzantine game - I think a minor makeover could make Eastern Europe much more exciting as a whole.
1.) Make Bulgaria hate Byzantium more.
I never fought the Bulgarians. I gifted them a tech, got open borders, and they vassalized to me a little while later. That probably shouldn't happen. Bulgaria starts with enough Konniks to really be a problem for a Byzantine player - give them another military tech or two to start, and even a buffed up Byzantium might take a (more historically accurate) while to vassalize or annex them.
2.) The Arabs always need to be Islamic and at war, no matter what trick the player pulls.
As noted earlier, I didn't just avoid a war - the Arabs went Orthodox! The Byzantines and the Arabs fought over the Levant, Antioch, and Aleppo for hundreds of years. The reason the Kingdom of Al-Andalus even existed was because of their rapid spread through North Africa - lest we forget the battle of Tours! If you are going to start the game before those 200 years of rapid expansion even commenced, the Arabs need to be a bit more dangerous when they spawn.
3.) The Turks need to be a juggernaut.
The seige of Vienna will never happen in the currently constructed RFCE. I'm not saying it needs to, but the Turks should be really, really powerful. Let them build up to a massive size, but butcher their economy for over expanding: historically accurate, scary for opponents, and fun to play (at least till your tech growth slows to a crawl.) I'm not asking for an expanded flip zone, by the way - an exceptional Byzantine player deserves a chance at surviving through the end of the mod (the Greeks come back in 1824, anyway). Most players, however, should be overwhelmed...and AI Turkey should always have the ability to conquer Constantinople from AI Byzantium before 1500.
4.) Let the Hungarians build their capital in a better location
The Hungarians need to be slightly stronger than they are to check the Poles, and especially so if the Bulgarians are going to grow up angry. They'll need to fend off more aggression from the South if Byzantium and Bulgaria are going to be better, so make them capable of it. Better city locations should really be all the AI needs to be marginally more formidible, I think.
5.) Build some reinforced walls around the Balkan powderkeg.
If worst comes to worst, either the Byzantines or the Turks (or the Bulgars) will end up a little too powerful after the suggested modifications. This problem can be minimized while adding even more historical accuracy to the mod. Make the Kievans a little more expansive (esp. on the Crimea: I often barely meet them before the Mongols run them over - Why can't I marry off a princess in exchange for the Varangian Guard?
). The Moscowans may or may not be strong enough to check a particularly adventurous Turkey as currently constructed- but IRL, they had eyes for Constantinople during the 19th Century iirc...so they have a historical reason for keeping down a Balkan juggernaut. And, of course, not only did the Austrians eventually push back the Turks: they also conquered Hungary. I never see the Hapsburgs quite as powerful as they should be, anyway... so power them up if Turkey/Byzantium would be too strong after my suggestions.
Spoiler :
Let me give you the rundown on where I stand so far:
I spent the first turn adopting Orthodoxy as a state religion. After that, I had all my cities build walls except Constantinople (Shrine of Uppsala); Nicea, Athinai, Thessloniki, and Epheseus (worker); Alexandria (Trireme); Antioch (Courthouse). Jerusalem was building two workers and then research, Tyre 1 worker and research, and Cyrene just research. The first tech I research is engineering: I focus on getting Castles everywhere for Defense + Economy. Also, I deleted all troops I deemed expendable.
After the Castles are up, I focus (with a few exceptions) on getting Courthouses and Manor Houses everywhere, as per Feyaria's suggestion.
This doesn't really work out for me. Even though, because I gifted Arabia Tyre, Jerusalem, and Cyrene after they founded Damascus, I had +2 relations with them (they eventually even adopted orthodoxy), even though I vassalize Bulgaria, foreign stability is at two stars. Expansion is also at two stars. In the hundred years from 856 on, I lost Antioch, Tarsus, and Aleppo to independant revolution. I am at about -30 Unstable. Didn't even have a civic changing revolution, and probably won't until I get another vassal (I figure +8 from vassalage will be worth the anarchy).
Anyway, though I can probably complete the UHV at this stage through ample use of Cataphracts, I feel like playing a Byzantine game is simply not a fun experience for the player: "Stave off collapse by using a specific build order in Feyaria's strategy guide so you can complete the UHV before the Turkish kill you" isn't really an engaging tag-line.
I do believe, however, that the Byzantine game will need fewer tweaks than I thought to be a really enjoyable experience. Here's my set of solutions at the moment (to be used in conjuction):
1.) Reduce the production penalties for the Byzantines:
I don't even think the research penalties are all that bad - with a little help from the Round Church, I had Patronage in the 800s, and a well rounded list of techs (with a little more help from my Bulgarian vassal). But the production gimp is just out of hand. It takes between two and four dozen turns to build a settler in my better cities. Forget responding to military developments as they happen - and keeping more than a couple units in border cities can be a real drag on the economy.
2.) Increase the amount of production for Constantinople:
With city growth and overall maintenance penalties as they are for the Byzantines, Constantinople has to be the lifeblood of the Byzantine economy - currently, it doesn't have enough production to be the city it needs to be without the Shrine of Uppsala. My strongest preference is that the Shrine be moved back a tech or two and that Constantinople be naturally granted a couple more hills and/or resources to keep it's exact growth potential while gaining production, but if you want to keep the shrine where it is, I suggest another plains hill's worth of hammers, anyway.
(N.B. - Yes, I realize that 1 and 2 have overlapping effects: The production penalties for the Byzantines are so severe, however, I think both might be warranted. Besides, this would allow Constantinople to become even more vital to the Empire, and an even more attractive for foreign nations to capture. I think the latter part of that spells fun when this game goes multiplayer.)
3.) Reduce stability penalties for Byzantium.
This doesn't need to be tremendously adjusted - the player should be allowed to change a couple civics and adopt a state religion without hemorrhaging cities, however. Also, this buff would be hedged by a decreasing usefulness in the UP, so a marginal boost shouldn't completely change the lifespan of the Byzantines - just reduce the amount of independants. Actually, I think a more than marginal boost is warranted - but let me explain.
Right now, the Byzantine Empire is just big, as opposed to powerful. It cannot project force (forget about pulling off the historical Empire of Justinian), cannot expand naturally (like founding a couple more cities in Greece and Western Anatolia), and cannot recover from major setback (if the Fourth Crusade happened in this game, Boniface of Montferrat would probably be fighting the Turks for control of Nicea and the Venetians for Greece in 1453.) With the goal of creating a Byzantine empire that is actually powerful, I heavily considered adding reduced research and city growth penalties to the list above, as well as urging even further reduced overall production and stability penalties.
The obvious downside of creating a powerful Byzantium is that making such a large civilization easy to play could destroy the Balance of Power in Eastern Europe. But I think a powerful Byzantium is desirable for both historical and gameplay reasons. There is an easy solution for the BoP that also jibes with other suggestions made on this forum. The Byzantine Empire shouldn't be artificially weak - other civs around it simply need to be stronger, and hate it more. Five suggestions on rebalancing the game after adjusting the Byzantines follow. I don't just think they'll allow for a more interesting Byzantine game - I think a minor makeover could make Eastern Europe much more exciting as a whole.
1.) Make Bulgaria hate Byzantium more.
I never fought the Bulgarians. I gifted them a tech, got open borders, and they vassalized to me a little while later. That probably shouldn't happen. Bulgaria starts with enough Konniks to really be a problem for a Byzantine player - give them another military tech or two to start, and even a buffed up Byzantium might take a (more historically accurate) while to vassalize or annex them.
2.) The Arabs always need to be Islamic and at war, no matter what trick the player pulls.
As noted earlier, I didn't just avoid a war - the Arabs went Orthodox! The Byzantines and the Arabs fought over the Levant, Antioch, and Aleppo for hundreds of years. The reason the Kingdom of Al-Andalus even existed was because of their rapid spread through North Africa - lest we forget the battle of Tours! If you are going to start the game before those 200 years of rapid expansion even commenced, the Arabs need to be a bit more dangerous when they spawn.
3.) The Turks need to be a juggernaut.
The seige of Vienna will never happen in the currently constructed RFCE. I'm not saying it needs to, but the Turks should be really, really powerful. Let them build up to a massive size, but butcher their economy for over expanding: historically accurate, scary for opponents, and fun to play (at least till your tech growth slows to a crawl.) I'm not asking for an expanded flip zone, by the way - an exceptional Byzantine player deserves a chance at surviving through the end of the mod (the Greeks come back in 1824, anyway). Most players, however, should be overwhelmed...and AI Turkey should always have the ability to conquer Constantinople from AI Byzantium before 1500.
4.) Let the Hungarians build their capital in a better location
The Hungarians need to be slightly stronger than they are to check the Poles, and especially so if the Bulgarians are going to grow up angry. They'll need to fend off more aggression from the South if Byzantium and Bulgaria are going to be better, so make them capable of it. Better city locations should really be all the AI needs to be marginally more formidible, I think.
5.) Build some reinforced walls around the Balkan powderkeg.
If worst comes to worst, either the Byzantines or the Turks (or the Bulgars) will end up a little too powerful after the suggested modifications. This problem can be minimized while adding even more historical accuracy to the mod. Make the Kievans a little more expansive (esp. on the Crimea: I often barely meet them before the Mongols run them over - Why can't I marry off a princess in exchange for the Varangian Guard?
). The Moscowans may or may not be strong enough to check a particularly adventurous Turkey as currently constructed- but IRL, they had eyes for Constantinople during the 19th Century iirc...so they have a historical reason for keeping down a Balkan juggernaut. And, of course, not only did the Austrians eventually push back the Turks: they also conquered Hungary. I never see the Hapsburgs quite as powerful as they should be, anyway... so power them up if Turkey/Byzantium would be too strong after my suggestions.3Miro
Deity
- Part of the problem with Bulgaria is that they have to use all of the initial Konniks to fend off incoming barbarians. Avars and Khazars were a problem initially, however, historically from the time (early 9th century) when Khan Krum conquered the Avars till the Mongols, there was no treat for Bulgaria coming from the north-east.
- Constantinople needs more productions (it should be more like Babylon, Athens and Rome from RFC)
- The Arbas converting to Orthodoxy is somewhat rare. We could implement diplomacy penalty for Bulgaria and Arabia vs Byzantium. (modify couple of lines in RFCEBalance.py)
- The Byzantines should start Orthodox (they used to be that way if I remember correctly).
- Poor stability for the Byzantines only results in secession of peripheral cities. Once stripped to the core, you can change civics to your heart's content.
- In order for the Turks to become powerful, the Byzantines should become weak and either collapse or almost collapse.
Question: can anyone confirm/deny the Turkish UP working correctly? That might be part of the problem. The Turks should be able to make a good size army fairly easily.
- Constantinople needs more productions (it should be more like Babylon, Athens and Rome from RFC)
- The Arbas converting to Orthodoxy is somewhat rare. We could implement diplomacy penalty for Bulgaria and Arabia vs Byzantium. (modify couple of lines in RFCEBalance.py)
- The Byzantines should start Orthodox (they used to be that way if I remember correctly).
- Poor stability for the Byzantines only results in secession of peripheral cities. Once stripped to the core, you can change civics to your heart's content.
- In order for the Turks to become powerful, the Byzantines should become weak and either collapse or almost collapse.
Question: can anyone confirm/deny the Turkish UP working correctly? That might be part of the problem. The Turks should be able to make a good size army fairly easily.
ius_iurandi
Chieftain
3Miro:
to your fifth point: "- Poor stability for the Byzantines only results in secession of peripheral cities. Once stripped to the core, you can change civics to your heart's content."
If that's the goal of a Byzantine player, the start time of the civ is very odd. Byzantium grew during the 6th century; it didn't lose peripheral cities to secession. I would endorse a later start time for the mod (especially since Spain and Russia have been moved back), if that's what you want to do, since I find the current start to be historically inaccurate.
However, if that's not the plan, I don't really think a Byzantine player should have to forgo any resemblance to Justinians empire for a passing one to his civics.
Re: the inaccuracy of the 500AD start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LocationByzantineEmpire_550.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-en.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundians
The starting scenario is incorrect after a dozen or so turns.
to your fifth point: "- Poor stability for the Byzantines only results in secession of peripheral cities. Once stripped to the core, you can change civics to your heart's content."
If that's the goal of a Byzantine player, the start time of the civ is very odd. Byzantium grew during the 6th century; it didn't lose peripheral cities to secession. I would endorse a later start time for the mod (especially since Spain and Russia have been moved back), if that's what you want to do, since I find the current start to be historically inaccurate.
However, if that's not the plan, I don't really think a Byzantine player should have to forgo any resemblance to Justinians empire for a passing one to his civics.
Re: the inaccuracy of the 500AD start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LocationByzantineEmpire_550.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Frankish_Empire_481_to_814-en.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgundians
The starting scenario is incorrect after a dozen or so turns.
steampunk1880
Prince
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2007
- Messages
- 328
What if I don't want to be minus 100 stablity and confined to the Byzantine "core" area. What if i really do want to recreate Justinian's conquests and actually hold it this time? As an alternate history buff I enjoy taking things in other directions as much as possible and with Byzantium I am far too restricted I approve of lessening Byzantine stability penalties and making everyone hate it more. It would also be really nice if there wasn't as crippling a civic upkeep in the beginning as there is now. Borrow that part of the organized trait and apply it to the Civ, or maybe a wonder that Constantinople starts with.
ius_iurandi
Chieftain
I've played a little more, and tried to found Heliopolis/Cairo as part of an experiment. The city declared it's independence 3 turns after founding. It had no military units in it, so I retook it in two turns and moved out, in case it flipped again. One turn after the riots subsided, it declared again. I retook it in two turns. Riots subside, it flips. I retake. It flips. I retake. It flips. I retake.
It flips.
Really guys? I can't found one city after losing Antioch, Aleppo, and Tarsus?
Sorry for the sarcasm, and I don't mean to offend, but this is legitimately frustrating and anti-fun.
It flips.
Really guys? I can't found one city after losing Antioch, Aleppo, and Tarsus?
Sorry for the sarcasm, and I don't mean to offend, but this is legitimately frustrating and anti-fun.
Michael Vick
#1
I think I once mentioned the possibility of the Byzantines starting with Heliopolis. Here's an idea, what if they did start with it, and it had the pyramids already built in it? We could give the pyramids a stability benefit, so the Empire could have higher stability and more influence in Egypt up until the point when Arabia spawned. Then Cairo (Al-Qahira) but not Alexandria would flip to Saladin, giving Arabia the benefits of the pyramids.
Or we don't have to have it flip, if the effects of the pyramids are substantial enough, it could solve some your problems, Mr. Iurandi.
Or we don't have to have it flip, if the effects of the pyramids are substantial enough, it could solve some your problems, Mr. Iurandi.
ius_iurandi
Chieftain
Well, I'd be in favor of having a Heliopolis that flips - it would make the Arabs stronger (a pet peeve of mine), and hinder the ease with which a Byzantine player can make the Arabs a non-factor (i.e., move the two defenders in Jerusalem one tile N of the Red Sea, have Jerusalem build a worker before it flips, and have the worker build a fort. Insta-75% defense boost when fortified on a hill.)
The Byzantine stability, though, needs a more permanent boost. Currently, I managed to secure Heliopolis by taking Kiev from the Barbs w/ one Cataphract and letting that flip instead, while letting Sinope and Ceasarea be overrun. I retook Tarsus, lost it to the Seljuks, and then took Antioch with my last Cataphract at around 1050. I'm building up Anitioch for my UHV required invasion of Aleppo, and, around 1110, Antioch flips. :sigh: I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
The Byzantine stability, though, needs a more permanent boost. Currently, I managed to secure Heliopolis by taking Kiev from the Barbs w/ one Cataphract and letting that flip instead, while letting Sinope and Ceasarea be overrun. I retook Tarsus, lost it to the Seljuks, and then took Antioch with my last Cataphract at around 1050. I'm building up Anitioch for my UHV required invasion of Aleppo, and, around 1110, Antioch flips. :sigh: I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
3Miro
Deity
The Franks/Burgundy/Byzantine start was chosen so that the Byzantines do not start alone in 500AD, the Byzantines are not grossly overpowered and the Franks have some competition early on. Delaying the Byzantine start is very historically inaccurate since they were the only thing in Europe in 6 and 7th century.
If the western territory of the Byzantine Empire did not fall via secession then how did they fall. Justinian had Rome and territory in Spain and North Africa. Has there been a large war between the Byzantines and some Barbs to split off the cities (or perhaps the inhabitants of Italy?). Form my history readings, most of the western territory of the Empire fell due to instability.
The western part of the Empire was mostly pressed by Bulgarians and Arabs (which we are trying to represent this mod). We can push back the Bulgarian start to a bit more historical 670 - 680s, do you think that would help?
IN terms of the civics, there is a -20 temporary penalty that should not result in more than a city secessing (if that) and -3 permanent penalty that should have somewhat little effect over the long term gameplay. What civics are you choosing and why couple of anarchies are leading to such a sacrifice?
If you with to build Justinian's Byzantine Empire AND make it last, well, that should be next to impossible. Have you tried to build East + West Rome in RFC AND keep them together in 1400AD. Is that easy?
I am not saying that the Byzantines are currently well balanced, in fact I believe they are not. However, I don't see the "inaccuracy of the 500AD start" (in terms of the gameplay) and the need to make the Byzantines a lot more powerful.
Michael Vick
#1
1. Can we include Heliopolis(Cairo) with the Pyramids?
2. Can we include Trebizond in the North East of Anatolia? It was a pretty major city and that area of the map just stays empty otherwise.
2. Can we include Trebizond in the North East of Anatolia? It was a pretty major city and that area of the map just stays empty otherwise.
micbic
Optimistic Pessimist
@Michael Vick: Perhaps, if we add these two cities, we need to remove one (Tarsus? the area is too crowded), to minimize the danger of turning Byzantium overpowered.
operafantom
Chieftain
Anyway when AI plays Hungary they don't really expand. They begin with 3 settlers and mostly they have 2, sometimes three cities when they are larger. They should expand well. It's their UHV. Another thing that I'd said before, I don't think starting in Debrecen is good. Debrecen was never a capital in that period. Not a very significant city. Sorry that I lobby for that so much, but why not Buda? It has the same food resources (the pig and barley), it was the capital, and it has two hills, too. In the other thread I wrote about it once. Please, react something.
operafantom
Chieftain
Not to the theme: can you help me, please, where can I find some hints which are the factors of the economic, city and civics stability?
sedna17
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,091
@operafantom: I did respond to your suggestion before, and asked which square on the map you thought was appropriate for Buda.
Perhaps my typo made it confusing, I meant to say I have no objections -- i.e. I am happy to make the change. If you post a screenshot of the map showing which square you think is best for Hungary to start on, I will change it to that square. If you do not, I will pick the square that seems best for Buda to me.
Perhaps my typo made it confusing, I meant to say I have no objections -- i.e. I am happy to make the change. If you post a screenshot of the map showing which square you think is best for Hungary to start on, I will change it to that square. If you do not, I will pick the square that seems best for Buda to me.
Michael Vick
#1
Sounds good, I think Trebizond should have a higher population than the others in the area, I think it should be like an equal to Nicea in production, pop, and culture. It should also flip to Turkey in case this spot isn't already in their flip zone...
Cairo should have a smaller population, some culture, but no improvements around it, it should only come into prominence under Arabia. The pyramids should just provide a stability boost of some kind.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
I support operafantom in that. In fact, while you were posting I was playing around with Worldbuilder and came up with this. (see screenshot). As I've shown, the tile beside the lake or 1 tile right of that would be best as a spawn point. And as all the surrounding tiles are labelled Buda or or Pecs anyway, why don't we just let it spawn as Budapest. It saves a name change later.
merijn_v1
Black Belt
I would personally place Buda one tile to the right.
Metal Alloy Man
Back in Black
- Joined
- May 6, 2008
- Messages
- 761
I second this.
operafantom
Chieftain
@Sedna: I misunderstood you sorry . The one which Jessiecat suggested is OK, or a tile norther.
. The one which Jessiecat suggested is OK, or a tile norther.
Wessel V1
Emperor
1 Tile to the right (viewing from Buda) seems fine to me, if it doesn't take too much space away from Wien and it's surrounding tiles. (Also, I'd place the city in the north 2 tiles east, since it has more resources and acces to a river. Cities on rivers are very often much more profitable than cities that are not
)
EDIT: Okay, it just fits. However, I think that the Austrians (if human) can collapse Hungary very easily then, since Hungary won't last very long after it's capitol is taken. Otherwise, one tile south of the current spawn site is okay I think.
)EDIT: Okay, it just fits. However, I think that the Austrians (if human) can collapse Hungary very easily then, since Hungary won't last very long after it's capitol is taken. Otherwise, one tile south of the current spawn site is okay I think.
