Michael Vick
#1
Just thought I'd bring this topic back to the top of the list...
RFC Europe Wonders
- Thread starter st.lucifer
- Start date
3Miro
Deity
Michael Vick, here are some notes on why those would not be included in the next version:
First of all, I am less robust in XML and graphics than Python and C++. Meaning it would take me some time to figure out how to add the colonies. There are more pressing things that I can be doing instead. (like the Pope, Crusaders, Mongols, general AI)
Second, this is just a list of the colonies, there is no art to go with them and we will first have to spend time to find the appropriate art. I am not half the artist that sedna is, so making any art of mine is out of the question.
Third, I don't think we have well considered all the balancing issues that may arise. Some examples are:
- right now we have 12 colonies with 14 required by various UHVs. Currently there are plenty of colonies for everyone and hence not much competition. 10 more colonies would only enhance that. Basically those UHVs would become meaningless.
- we can increase the number of colonies required to complete the UHVs, however, we may have the problem with requiring too many expensive projects. It may not be feasible to build all the required colonies.
- lowering the cost for the projects leads to making the Atlantic access meaningless. At a low cost land bound Poland/Moscow/Kiev can easily build colonies and that should be avoided.
- in general we may have too many colony resources already. Adding more will not help anything.
I hope I am not disrespectful, I just wish to show you why bumping the thread up will not help get the colonies coded faster.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
On the topic of colonies, I've noticed that a lot of land-bound civs are now beating the intended colonisers to most colonies, a situation most of us will recognize as totally unhistorical and unsatisfactory from a gameplay point of view. One of the problems is that colony building requires neither Atlantic Access or a trading company.
So leaving aside the question of new colonies for the moment (Maybe later), I've come up a new set of requirements for colony building.
1. Any civ can build a trading company (points bonus plus extra trade route?)
2. All colonies to require Atlantic Access but AA does not speed colony building
3. Slaves reduce colony build time by 50% (as now)
4. All colonies (except for first 2) to require a specific trading company
Gold Coast - requires Astronomy
East Africa - requires Astronomy
Cuba - requires Trading Companies and West India Company
East Indies - requires Trading Companies and East India Company
Ivory Coast - requires Nationalism and West India Company
Indian Trading Posts - requires Nationalism and East India Company
Brazil -requires Liberalism and West India Company
Capetown -requires Liberalism and East India Company
Virginia -requires Naval Architecture and West India Company
Far Eastern Trading Forts -requires Naval Architecture and East India Company
Hudson Bay -requires Civil Engineering and West India Company
Malaya- requires Civil Engineering and East India Company
This should encourage all civs to build trading companies (which the AI doesn't do now) and ensure that most colonies will be built by the historical colonizers or at least by those who can gain control of Atlantic Access, making it a much more valuable asset to control. What do people think of this idea?
So leaving aside the question of new colonies for the moment (Maybe later), I've come up a new set of requirements for colony building.
1. Any civ can build a trading company (points bonus plus extra trade route?)
2. All colonies to require Atlantic Access but AA does not speed colony building
3. Slaves reduce colony build time by 50% (as now)
4. All colonies (except for first 2) to require a specific trading company
Gold Coast - requires Astronomy
East Africa - requires Astronomy
Cuba - requires Trading Companies and West India Company
East Indies - requires Trading Companies and East India Company
Ivory Coast - requires Nationalism and West India Company
Indian Trading Posts - requires Nationalism and East India Company
Brazil -requires Liberalism and West India Company
Capetown -requires Liberalism and East India Company
Virginia -requires Naval Architecture and West India Company
Far Eastern Trading Forts -requires Naval Architecture and East India Company
Hudson Bay -requires Civil Engineering and West India Company
Malaya- requires Civil Engineering and East India Company
This should encourage all civs to build trading companies (which the AI doesn't do now) and ensure that most colonies will be built by the historical colonizers or at least by those who can gain control of Atlantic Access, making it a much more valuable asset to control. What do people think of this idea?
3Miro
Deity
Sounds reasonable. That way Germany will have to fight his way to AA to build colonies, which makes sense. We can further make the AI less likely to "sell" AA to others.
We might have to revise the locations of the AA. I have little experience with the colonial gameplay. I will have to play couple of games with Spain and England to see how it will work out.
We might have to revise the locations of the AA. I have little experience with the colonial gameplay. I will have to play couple of games with Spain and England to see how it will work out.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
My thinking also. Spain already has to capture Cadiz to gain AA. Genoa has to capture Marseilles for them to build colonies as well. Same with Sweden and the Norse. The advantage to the above system, as I see it, is that each tech only unlocks 2 colonies which then can only be built with the appropriate trading company in place. It also leaves open the possibility of adding new colonies if required, for which I can provide suitable splash screen art as I did with the others.
3Miro
Deity
My idea to complement yours:
AA would be located:
- one in northern Iberia (Spain gets it with or without killing Cordoba).
- one near Cadiz
- one near Lisbon
- one in North Africa, next to the Indy city. The purpose it that all Mediterranean nations can gain AA via access to Gibraltar (on the African side), and perhaps culture fight with Spain for keeping it.
- one near Bordeaux (firmly French)
- one near Manchester (firmly British)
- one between Brest and York that way either England or France will have two resources.
- one in either Ireland or Norway for the Norse/Swedish/Russians if they stretch a bit.
That way, everyone except the very heavily land bound nations will have a chance of getting to a AA (Poland, Bulgaria, Kiev, Austria and Hungary will probably have no chance, Germany will have to destroy France).
There will be the option of trading AA, but I will make it so that it costs a lot (and the AI will be generally disinclined to trade AA).
AA would be located:
- one in northern Iberia (Spain gets it with or without killing Cordoba).
- one near Cadiz
- one near Lisbon
- one in North Africa, next to the Indy city. The purpose it that all Mediterranean nations can gain AA via access to Gibraltar (on the African side), and perhaps culture fight with Spain for keeping it.
- one near Bordeaux (firmly French)
- one near Manchester (firmly British)
- one between Brest and York that way either England or France will have two resources.
- one in either Ireland or Norway for the Norse/Swedish/Russians if they stretch a bit.
That way, everyone except the very heavily land bound nations will have a chance of getting to a AA (Poland, Bulgaria, Kiev, Austria and Hungary will probably have no chance, Germany will have to destroy France).
There will be the option of trading AA, but I will make it so that it costs a lot (and the AI will be generally disinclined to trade AA).
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
OK. Though I would keep the one a Tonsberg and at Marseilles but not have an extra one in the Med or off W. Africa or near Ireland. I think we should keep the no. of AAs to a minimum so they are more keenly fought over.
3Miro
Deity
Starting from Marseilles one has to cross Gibraltar. The idea for the resource next to Tanger is to inspire fight for the control of the Gibraltar straight. France will have AA guaranteed anyway.
The one in Ireland goes away and the one next to Tonsberg stays.
Remove the one next to Cadiz.
That way Spain, Portugal, England, France and the Norse have one access each. One extra access is up for grabs between France and England (of if someone else moves into the British Channel) and one at Gibraltar will be accessible to Mediterranean sea faring nations (Venice, Genoa, Arabia, Cordoba, Byzantium and Burgundy), if they move over and take on Tanger.
Everyone else will have a very hard time.
merijn_v1
Black Belt
IMO the Dutch should get AA too.
3Miro
Deity
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
Oh right, I forgot about the Dutch. So there is one near Amsterdam then
Just to summarize, we'll have one at:
Tonsberg
Amsterdam
Manchester
between Plymouth and Brest
Bordeaux
Lisbon
west of Tangier
and that's all. Right?
3Miro
Deity
One more, near A Coruna. The Spanish AI fails to conquer Cordoba in many cases and then Spain will have no colonies. It is better to guarantee them the resource. Also, Spain (even if it conquers Cordoba), will not go over to North Africa for the Tangier one. So the list is:
Tonsberg
Amsterdam
Manchester
between Plymouth and Brest
Bordeaux
Lisbon
A Coruna
west of Tangier
Michael Vick
#1
Take away La Coruna, keep Cadiz. SPAIN NEEDS TO KILL CORDOBA. If the AI fails to do this, they can achieve none of the UHV's and thus they fail as a civiization. Would Spain have been a great colonial power had they not retaken Spain from the moors? They don't need free access. Also, Spain's trade with the rest of the world went out of Seville/Cadiz, not A Coruna, Braga, Vigo, what have you. That mini-galleon looks a lot more historically accurate sitting outside of Cadiz and the mouth of the Guadalquivir.
3Miro
Deity
You are correct technically. However, we have still been unable to make the Spanish AI go after Cordoba aggressively enough. There is nothing wrong with penalizing the Human if he is unable to conquer Cordoba, however, the AI is incompetent enough and doesn't need more penalization.
For the third alpha, the top priority would be the AI for Spain - Cordoba, Bulgaria and Arabia vs Byzantium and Turkey vs everyone. If I can see Spain conquer southern Iberia at leas once in a while, I will remove the resource next to A Coruna (or is it La Coruna, micbic maps will be included in the next version).
For the third alpha, the top priority would be the AI for Spain - Cordoba, Bulgaria and Arabia vs Byzantium and Turkey vs everyone. If I can see Spain conquer southern Iberia at leas once in a while, I will remove the resource next to A Coruna (or is it La Coruna, micbic maps will be included in the next version).
Michael Vick
#1
Ive always said La Corunna but maybe thats just the modern way.
Michael Vick
#1
No no no, I completely disagree that so many colonies need "trading companies".
The East India Company is a term mainly used to refer to the British East India Company, other times the Dutch East India company, and sometimes even the Portuguese East India Company.
The West India Company refers to either that of the French, or Dutch.
All of these "Trading Companies" were established in the early 1600's well after the first overseas colonies had started developing, in fact, they were created to better manage the profits ALREADY coming from the colonies.
It's not a good idea to make it so that all but two colonies require a "Trading Company". Besides, what about Spain? The Norse? Potentially Burgundy? They never had a "East India Company". AFAIK, Christopher Columbus was never an associate of the Spanish India Co.
The trading companies could be built about halfway through the colonial stage, and they could allow the colonies that actually were controlled by the companies, Projects in India, Malaya, among others. The West India Company? I don't know, I think there should only be one trading company. Another possibility is that Trading Companies could, instead of allowing the colonies, increase their build speed.
A new proposal for colony making:
1. Trading Companies (not East/West India Companies, just trading companies) can be built by anyone, won't require AA, won't allow colonies.
2. You can build up to two Trading Companies which will provide the same benefits as in base RFC, and can halve production costs for a few projects like Malaya and Indian trading posts.
3.All colonies are to require Atlantic Access but not a Trading Company (Production costs are to be halved for all civs now)
4. Slaves halve production costs for select projects, Cuba, Brazil, etc.
5. With the addition of some more colonies, production costs will be halved again
6. Also if the new colonies are added, they will provide 4 resources.
7. With all the new areas that are designated as colonies, production costs can be halved yet again if you have a colony that "borders" one you're building. (Hispaniola is half production cost for Cuba, Virginia is half production cost for New England)(the "border" advantage can only have costs once, and won't apply to Treaty Ports and Trading Posts.)
8. Now without trading companies as a necessity, colonies will start to be available much earlier, as historical (Cuba won't still be available in 1600), and will make a steady stream of colonies being made available, starting early and ending late.
What do people think of a system like this?
3Miro
Deity
1. I'll let Jessiecat comment, it was his idea. I think there might be a misunderstanding on what a trading company is (are we talking about East India Company that took over an entire country or a generic trading company that "trades").
2. One project reducing the cost of another project is next to impossible to implement in a reasonable way. Can you think of something else?
3 - 4 They do now.
5. I disagree. With the removal of AA as a bonus, the cost of colonies did decrease (it is so in Alpha 2), however, I am against halving it again. I believe the colonial victories are already somewhat easy. We may reduce the cost of the colonies, but not by 50%, I vote for 10% tops. (If we test the gameplay to be broken afterwards we will act accordingly of course)
6. It is not an if, but a when and absolutely, the number of resources will have to be reduced.
7. Code - see above. No "border colonies" please.
8. It is fine as long as colonies don't start too early.
2. One project reducing the cost of another project is next to impossible to implement in a reasonable way. Can you think of something else?
3 - 4 They do now.
5. I disagree. With the removal of AA as a bonus, the cost of colonies did decrease (it is so in Alpha 2), however, I am against halving it again. I believe the colonial victories are already somewhat easy. We may reduce the cost of the colonies, but not by 50%, I vote for 10% tops. (If we test the gameplay to be broken afterwards we will act accordingly of course)
6. It is not an if, but a when and absolutely, the number of resources will have to be reduced.
7. Code - see above. No "border colonies" please.
8. It is fine as long as colonies don't start too early.
Michael Vick
#1
1. Both kinds, colonial trade in the Spanish Empire was regulated by the state. Trading companies should be optional IMO, for the Dutch and English players that want to be historic about it.
2. "Trading Company" provides... "specialresource". It won't be available in any other form but from the trading company, the info for the trading company won't talk about the resource, but will say "Double Production Speed for Malaya, Far Eastern Treaty Port, Indian Trading Post, (and whatever applicable colonies we add)" Then the info for these projects will say "Double Production Speed with a Trading Company" The resource could just be referred to as "a trading company".
3-5. Ok
6. Great!
7. It can be implemented through resources, like "Virginia Resource", which will improve production speed of New England. It will be a secret though, like with trading company resource. What do u mean "no border colonies"?
8. The very firstest should start getting completed by the AI at around 1500, we're a long way from that right now.
2. "Trading Company" provides... "specialresource". It won't be available in any other form but from the trading company, the info for the trading company won't talk about the resource, but will say "Double Production Speed for Malaya, Far Eastern Treaty Port, Indian Trading Post, (and whatever applicable colonies we add)" Then the info for these projects will say "Double Production Speed with a Trading Company" The resource could just be referred to as "a trading company".
3-5. Ok
6. Great!
7. It can be implemented through resources, like "Virginia Resource", which will improve production speed of New England. It will be a secret though, like with trading company resource. What do u mean "no border colonies"?
8. The very firstest should start getting completed by the AI at around 1500, we're a long way from that right now.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
1. There seems to be a misunderstanding about what trading companies represent in our game. The British East India Company was the only one that ever controlled a country ( India briefly in the 18thC). All the major trading nations, with the sole exception of Spain, granted exclusive trading concessions in specific colonies to joint stock companies in the form of Royal charters, usually initially for a period of 21 years. The only difference in the Spanish case was that colonial governors were given control of all trade in their territories by the Crown as part of their conditions of office, and they themselves were supervised by the King through his local representatives.
Therefore we have 2 generic "trading companies" representing trade arrangements in two distinct geographical areas.. It really doesn't matter what they're called but what we're using are the most typical examples. And we shouldn't change the whole system because of the single example that wasn't typical, ie Spain. This is Civ RFC not historical simulation so we need to have a common set of conditions for all our playable colonial civs.
2. It is simply wrong to suggest that there was significant colonial trade in the form of developed plantations much before 1600. There was a lot of buying of things like spices from local people esp. in India and the East Indies or wholesale looting of gold, silver and gems in the case of the Spanish conquest of the Americas. In fact that is why joint stock companies were established, to invest large sums of capital to develop colonial plantation economies in particular colonies. Which is precisely why we have each colony requiring a particular trading company. That should be obvious.
3. It is equally false to suggest that trading companies were confined two or three countries. Aside from the East and West Indies Companies in Britain and the Netherlands here is a partial list of a few other important ones.
Companhia de Guinee 1482 (Portugese)
The Muscovy Company 1555 (English)
The Turkey Company 1581 (English)
The Brandenburg Africa Company 1602 (German)
The Virginia Company 1606 (English)
The London and Bristol Company 1610 (English)
The Company of One Hundred Associates 1613 (French)
The New Netherlands Company 1614 (Dutch)
The Danish East Africa Company 1616 (Danish)
The Massachusetts Bay Company 1628 (English)
The Portugese East India Company 1628 (Portugese)
Le Compagnie des Iles L'Amerique 1635 (French)
Le Compagnie de Chine 1660 (French)
Le Compagnie de L'Occident 1664 (French)
Le Compagnie de L'Indies Occidentales 1670 (French)
The Hudson's Bay Company 1670 (English)
The Danish West India Company 1671 (Danish)
I agree with 3Miro that the cost of colonies should not be reduced and I agree that once we add new colonies the number of resources should be reduced. But I am not in favour of changing the system of colonies requiring trading companies simply to satisfy greater historical accuracy for the one civ that doesn't seem to fit the model (Spain). Sorry Michael. This mod should not have to adapt to the needs of one particular nationality. We could all demand that, couldn't we? Nor do I favour changing the colonial setup within one week of its being introduced without some serious playtesting first.
3Miro
Deity
How about this:
1. There will be two generic companies, East Company, required for Asian and African colonies and a West Company, required for American colonies.
2. The new projects, "Conquest of Inca" and "Conquest of the Aztec" will not require TC and that should cover Spain.
3. We can introduce a generic resource similar to Atlantic Access, just call it North America Access, South America Access (the central one may be part of either North or South), then Africa Access (for the Cape Towns, or maybe remove the African one) and Asian Access. Those, however, will not be hidden, they will work exactly the same as Atlantic Access.
1. There will be two generic companies, East Company, required for Asian and African colonies and a West Company, required for American colonies.
2. The new projects, "Conquest of Inca" and "Conquest of the Aztec" will not require TC and that should cover Spain.
3. We can introduce a generic resource similar to Atlantic Access, just call it North America Access, South America Access (the central one may be part of either North or South), then Africa Access (for the Cape Towns, or maybe remove the African one) and Asian Access. Those, however, will not be hidden, they will work exactly the same as Atlantic Access.
Similar threads
