RFCE 2.0 brainstorming thread

[Wessel V1]

Titles could of course be tied to just the provincies they are attained from. For example any French bonus is applied within French provinces only. I think I like the idea in general, especially with more civs like in RFCE++ and RFCE 2.0. It gives many opportunities.

For example, a welcome message of: "Greetings, duke of Burgundy! How do you do today?" in the diplomacy screen would be certainly nice to see. If events make their way back into 2.0 (which I think they should), the 'royal marriage' event could be extended with these titles, and possibly some others.

On the other hand, we have to make sure that in this case a) most civs get a title, because otherwise this wouldn't work too good since many civs are excluded then and b) the number of titles is reasonable, and only one can be chosen.

Even more eventful could be the following: another civic category, or 'title panel'. Duchies, counties, etc. are all different titles for something that and I to be honest do not know the differences between these. This category lets you choose which title to hold. This option indeed gives a turn of anarchy. This way you cannot be Duke of X and Count of Y at the same time and the bonusses won't go out of control. Just throwing in ideas here!

 

[Ogi123]

@Sian

any specific one in mind? ... Knights are overpowered by design

Well, there are some units that I personally think should be changed/added/removed. Of course this is only my opinion, but for example:

• Is Axeman really necessary, perhaps moving swordsman back in tech tree and giving him bonus vs. polearm would be better?
• Non English longbows are simply well... strange.
• Currently there are 4 archery units, and 3 polearm units despite the fact that latter are usable for much longer. Until combined arms and line infantry if I remember this correctly. So perhaps flipping it to 3 archery and 4 polearms units?
• There is distinct lack of some kind heavy cavalry between knight and cuirassier.
• Heavy infantry line could be probably slashed to 2 units, current progression is bit to fast and in too small unit strength increments.
• I have never find good use to grenadiers myself, cannons/field artillery are better in city attack. And why unit earlier in tech tree have bonus against latter unit?
• On the sea there is distinct lack of the ships of the line, frigate is currently most powerful ship, if I remember things correctly.
• Also there is long gap between mounted sergeant and pistoleer.

That's all I can remember , oh and perhaps doubling all units movement rate in civ 5 style? In RFC 1.0 map is already big, and in 2.0 it will be only bigger.

 

[Saturninus]

While a few of those titles are good, I think most of them are too huge and kind of unhistoric for civs.

I disagree. Rex Hispania, Rex Britannia, and Rex Francorum existed, and were claimed. They're merely Latin for King of Spain, Britain, and France, respectively; unification of Germany, Italy, and Scandanavia, while not accomplished in this time frame, were all goals by multiple groups, especially Italy. The only completely made up one was "King of the Normans".

In regards to the idea of smaller titles, however, I actually really like it. But I don't think you should be only able to hold one title at a time, as it was very standard policy among European aristocracy to be addressed by all of their titles. And instead of a bonus being replaced with a succession one like England+Scotland+Ireland, why not three cumulative, smaller, unique bonuses? Maybe an archer one for England, a spearman/pike one for Scotland, and an axeman one for Ireland? And then the naval bonus for all three. Once again, I love the idea of a ton of smaller titles, but I think it should stack, both when addressed and in terms of powers.

Would you like for me to putting together a list of titles and possible bonuses? I'll make sure to include those listed and others I find, along with bonuses that are size appropriate.

Last thing, and its not a big issue, but I think "Caliph" and "Emperor" should be interchangeable, while "sultan" and "king" switch. Technically, there should only ever be one Caliph, as they are the leader of the entire Muslim world, while there were many sultans. I do like the idea of it changing with religion though.

EDIT: this may sound a little crazy, but why not remove the "you get this for just existing" UPs and attach them to the title system? This would remove the fact that you'd more or less be giving ever civ a second UP, and give more incentive to invade and hold foriegn core territories, and to hold your own at all costs.

 

[Michael Vick]

I disagree. Rex Hispania, Rex Britannia, and Rex Francorum existed, and were claimed. They're merely Latin for King of Spain, Britain, and France, respectively; unification of Germany, Italy, and Scandanavia, while not accomplished in this time frame, were all goals by multiple groups, especially Italy. The only completely made up one was "King of the Normans".

In your previous post, you put Rex Hispania as King of Spain and Portugal, I meant to imply that I preferred separate Spain and Portugal titles, because even though the two were unified at one point, Philip II was referred to as the King of Spain and the King of Portugal. There was also once a Kingdom of Denmark & Norway, known as such, and I feel like if Sweden was added, it would have just been called the Kingdom of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The Kingdom of Scandinavia sounds uncomfortable to me, that's all.

For example, a welcome message of: "Greetings, duke of Burgundy! How do you do today?" in the diplomacy screen would be certainly nice to see. If events make their way back into 2.0 (which I think they should), the 'royal marriage' event could be extended with these titles, and possibly some others.

On the other hand, we have to make sure that in this case a) most civs get a title, because otherwise this wouldn't work too good since many civs are excluded then and b) the number of titles is reasonable, and only one can be chosen.

Even more eventful could be the following: another civic category, or 'title panel'. Duchies, counties, etc. are all different titles for something that and I to be honest do not know the differences between these. This category lets you choose which title to hold. This option indeed gives a turn of anarchy. This way you cannot be Duke of X and Count of Y at the same time and the bonusses won't go out of control. Just throwing in ideas here!

In regards to the idea of smaller titles, however, I actually really like it. But I don't think you should be only able to hold one title at a time, as it was very standard policy among European aristocracy to be addressed by all of their titles.

Agreed. I was thinking that there should be lots of lesser titles so that a civ could collect more than one. I don't know about picking a single title, I imagined a civ having a short titulature as a kind of list of achievements, similar to the titulatures of the Kings I mentioned in the previous post.

And instead of a bonus being replaced with a succession one like England+Scotland+Ireland, why not three cumulative, smaller, unique bonuses? Maybe an archer one for England, a spearman/pike one for Scotland, and an axeman one for Ireland? And then the naval bonus for all three. Once again, I love the idea of a ton of smaller titles, but I think it should stack, both when addressed and in terms of powers.

The intricacies of the different names and bonuses can vary greatly, they'll all be sorted out once enough people agree to this.

Last thing, and its not a big issue, but I think "Caliph" and "Emperor" should be interchangeable, while "sultan" and "king" switch. Technically, there should only ever be one Caliph, as they are the leader of the entire Muslim world, while there were many sultans. I do like the idea of it changing with religion though.

I found different sources that referred to both the Abbasids and Almohads as caliphates, didn't they exist at the same time? Correct me if you can, like I said, all these details will be sorted out eventually.

EDIT: this may sound a little crazy, but why not remove the "you get this for just existing" UPs and attach them to the title system? This would remove the fact that you'd more or less be giving ever civ a second UP, and give more incentive to invade and hold foriegn core territories, and to hold your own at all costs.

I don't think that every area should get an own title. It would be just a "2nd UP" that you can conquer. It wouldn't be special. I think that it should cover a larger area. (like whole Scandinavia, the complete balkans etc.)

You shouldn't get a title for just controlling your (or someone else's) spawn area. Everyone can do that.

Not every single province would have a title, there would only be titles that represented achievements. Forming the Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of Great Britain, or Tsardom of Russia for example are all big achievements. When you add the title Duke of Milan to whatever civ, it may seem like a small area, but to earn the title, that civ had to go to war with Lombardy and come out on top.

UP's are unique, by definition. These tiny bonuses you would get with each title aren't unique because they're shared with any civ that holds the title. A UP is a civ's RFC birthright, but titles and bonuses can be taken away and used by another civ, which makes them not unique. I think that title bonuses and UP's can coexist; the title bonuses especially right when you start out aren't going to be nearly as significant as your UP. UP's are a fact of RFC, and I don't think that Spain for example should get Aragon's (powerful) UP just for getting the three cities they usually found on Iberia. Title bonuses won't "get out of control" because I hope for them to be very small, incremental, at least when a civ first starts out as the Duchy of Burgundy, Duchy of Muscovy, etc. The real fun I think is seeing how long and prestigious of a title list you can build, this is the complete titulature of Charles V of Spain, Holy Roman Emperor, quoted from Wikipedia:

Charles, by the grace of God, Holy Roman Emperor, forever August, King of Germany, King of Italy, King of all Spains, of Castile, Aragon, León, Navarra, Granada, Toledo, Valencia, Galicia, Majorca, Sevilla, Cordoba, Murcia, Jaén, Algarves, Algeciras, Gibraltar, the Canary Islands, King of Two Sicilies, of Sardinia, Corsica, King of Jerusalem, King of the Western and Eastern Indies, Lord of the Islands and Main Ocean Sea, Archduke of Austria, Duke of Burgundy, Brabant, Lorraine, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, Limburg, Luxembourg, Gelderland, Neopatria, Württemberg, Landgrave of Alsace, Prince of Swabia, Asturia and Catalonia, Count of Flanders, Habsburg, Tyrol, Gorizia, Barcelona, Artois, Burgundy Palatine, Hainaut, Holland, Seeland, Ferrette, Kyburg, Namur, Roussillon, Cerdagne, Zutphen, Margrave of the Holy Roman Empire, Burgau, Oristano and Gociano, Lord of Frisia, the Wendish March, Pordenone, Biscay, Molin, Salins, Tripoli and Mechelen.

Obviously we can't possibly create as many titles in our RFCE map, but you get the idea.

I would start a new thread and have a regularly updated first post with your list, that's a good idea.

 

[Sian]

whole of scandinavia have been united ... at least de facto, (althrough not quite de jure) doing the Kalmar Union, controlling Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the 'civilized' non-nomadic parts of Finland, Northen Germany, and most of the North Atlantic Islands ... so yes, it was accomplised doing the time frame (and was demolished for good in 1523, and other than a romantic 'scandinaivsm' inspired by the unification of Germany, in the mid-late 19'th, it have been dead since then)

King of Scandinavia would probably be the best title ... if nothing else then as a easteregg towards the Sherlock Homles story "A Scandal in Bohemia"

 

[Saturninus]

In your previous post, you put Rex Hispania as King of Spain and Portugal, I meant to imply that I preferred separate Spain and Portugal titles, because even though the two were unified at one point, Philip II was referred to as the King of Spain and the King of Portugal. There was also once a Kingdom of Denmark & Norway, known as such, and I feel like if Sweden was added, it would have just been called the Kingdom of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. The Kingdom of Scandinavia sounds uncomfortable to me, that's all.

You're absolutely right. It was meant to refer to a title believed to have originally been claimed by Ordono II. He actually claimed rule over all of the Iberian Peninsula, even though he only effectively ruled Leon. I mistakenly assumed it would also be Rex Hispania in the same style as the kings of England and France, when in reality it was a considerably wordier title that translates to "Emperor of All Spain". (Imperator totius Hispaniae is the Latin term, if you care to
look into it.)

I found different sources that referred to both the Abbasids and Almohads as caliphates, didn't they exist at the same time? Correct me if you can, like I said, all these details will be sorted out eventually.

I think this really is one of those intricacies that will have to be ironed out latter. Like I said, "Caliph" was a title that refers to the leader of all of Islam. It's kind of analogous to the Pope, only imagine there was no agreed on way to elect him (that issue is actually the main source of the Sunni-Shia split), and the Eastern and Western church still considered themselves the same body. After the fall of the Umayyad, multiple dynasties laid claim, but the only ones most Muslims recognize are the Rashidun, Umayyad (up until their overthrow, so Cordoba doesn't count), the Abbasid, the Fatimid (and even then, they have the smallest backing), and the Ottomans. Though they would certainly be over sultans, which is a term that originally referred to more or less governors under a Caliph.

And I'll get right on that new thread

 

[steerpike_swe]

Thank you all for creating this great mod and for the continued development! I really appreciate it!

Since you are brainstorming I have some ideas and suggestions:

As I mentioned in a previous thread I really think that more mercs should be added. Mercs made up most of the armies in a most of the time of the mod. Despite this my total army (about 100-200 units or so) in the middle and end game, despite hiring all mercs available, typically includes only 1 or 2 mercs or no mercs at all.

Before the switch to the new merc system more mercs were available. So a possible solution might be to enable at least the AI to hire out their units as mercs as in the previous system. Another solution would be to dramatically increase the list of available mercs.

My argument is not only historical but also about game play.

For example: having 2 Hackapelites/Don Cossacks/Reiters/Line infantry/Other does not make any difference at all in a 20-50 unit attack stack.


More religious conflicts are needed.

Civs with different religions are way to often pleased/friendly towards each other. Why not implement the system from Sword of islam where prosecuting, massacring the infidels and razing cities wiyh other religion gives huge and cumulative diplo penalties towards all civs with that religion?

 

[yogiebere]

Hey guys! I've been really busy with college so I'm finally checking up on the 2.0 project, in just a short time, there are a ton of awesome ideas.

I guess first off is the HRE ideas. We toyed around with this around a year ago and I think it's still a great idea.

The main question is, what exactly does the HRE mean? It could mean:

1. Charlemagne's empire, which would involve making a civ in Aachen that splits up into France, Germany, Burgundy (and other independents until they are swallowed up by later civs).
The problem with this is that it would mean a short civ only certained with expansion, that quickly breaks up, not sure fun. But, it would mean places like Italy and the Netherlands (the Netherlands maybe could be given to Burgundy? Not too sure when they took that, maybe just give Burgundy an OK for Netherlands)
BUT, this is RFCE 2.0!! This is something that definitely could be put into place

2. The title of favored leader of the pope, could be an extra add-in for catholicism that gives bonus diplomacy, military powers, etc. We can brainstorm more for this. (I also think there should be more catholic advantages than just occasional churches, perhaps a small gold boost to counter protestants science?). Perhaps make this one of the goals of Germany.

3. Germany's empire much later than Charlemagne. This I think is the most promising of the 3 (though I like the 2nd too). This is also mostly implemented with the current Germany territory goals, the problem is I don't think they actually follow them. Ideally, they would take Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, Czech, and of course Germany, then lose most of those to other civs (Genoa, Austria, France?) as the scenario goes on. Do they even take half of these though? I usually see France take Italy for instance.

Now on the topic of German civs, I'm not sure if I like this. I think a possible outcome of Germany losing these civs in wars with Austria, France, Burgundy is that they split up into these small civs (Brandenburg, Bavaria, etc). I think forcing a split of Germany isn't as cool. Remember smooth and fun gameplay is the ultimate goal, even if that means ignoring the split of Germany directly.

I don't like the idea of a civil war in Germany due to protestantism. That would make people not want to research it.

I like the new ideas of Sicily (there is a much needed void filled by that). But I'm unsure about Switzerland. My main concern for this mod is that there isn't very much room at all to have all these small civs (Catalan, Aragon, Switzerland, etc) crammed into small 10-20 tile regions. Is the map size getting larger?? (I heard it was being changed possibly) Otherwise I really don't think there is room for Switzerland right now.

I also like the idea of FP bonus due to converting civs.

Also, an idea for Norman Sicily thing. I don't know about a civ with two completely different regions, but if that were true, perhaps the UP could be that they could get a stability bonus/ upkeep reduction for city distance or a super easy second palace to make the two regions stable.

 

[AdrienIer]

Well, the HRE would be the same as it is currently in RFCE++ (at least that's the plan). I suppose that you haven't tried it, else you wouldn't be asking those questions, but I certainly recommend it to you, as most of its features will be put in RFCE 2.0.
The very purpose of this second version is to make a new, bigger map (30 tiles horizontaly and 20 vertically IIRC), that would also encompass the caucasus and lead to more Russo/Ottoman wars.

 

[Michael Vick]

Well, the HRE would be the same as it is currently in RFCE++ (at least that's the plan). I suppose that you haven't tried it, else you wouldn't be asking those questions, but I certainly recommend it to you, as most of its features will be put in RFCE 2.0.
The very purpose of this second version is to make a new, bigger map (30 tiles horizontaly and 20 vertically IIRC), that would also encompass the caucasus and lead to more Russo/Ottoman wars.

@Yogie Bear

Exactly, besides the fact that you need to see the HRE, RCE++ is really awesome, I highly recommend it, I don't usually play RFCE without it. Don't download the current version though as it's very buggy. Aragon and Catalan are the same thing, they have a big area to expand including all of Eastern Iberia as well as Sardinia, Siciliy, and Naples, and the map is definitely going to be expanded in RFCE 2. We're going to get more room for each civ as well expansion into the Caucasus and Mesopotamia.

 

[yogiebere]

@Yogie Bear

Exactly, besides the fact that you need to see the HRE, RCE++ is really awesome, I highly recommend it, I don't usually play RFCE without it. Don't download the current version though as it's very buggy. Aragon and Catalan are the same thing, they have a big area to expand including all of Eastern Iberia as well as Sardinia, Siciliy, and Naples, and the map is definitely going to be expanded in RFCE 2. We're going to get more room for each civ as well expansion into the Caucasus and Mesopotamia.

Ok awesome! I'm excited!!

EDIT: So what exactly is the difference between the two, I thought I knew...

 

[yogiebere]

Hey I've been learning python in my cs class. Let me know if you'd like any help with that stuff for 2.0. I'd love to work on the maps.

 

[wolfigor]

I'm not against a Norman Sicily, but a civ exclusively in the two Sicilies would be either very short-lived or unhistoric and problematic for Aragonese expansion. Genoa already makes Sardinia difficult for Aragon AI, we all know that if there is a civ in Sicily, Aragon AI won't possibly be able to get it and we'd never see Spain in Italy.

In the context of the game a Sicilian civ would be counterproductive for game-play (as Michael Vick) stated.
Historically the kingdom of Sicily was rather short lived (from 1130 to 1194), often being given as inheritance to other kingdoms (to the German, French, and Spanish).
The local history of Sicily can be better rendered in the game by an independent town, to be conquered by the Norse or acquired via unions mechanism.

Ideally there should be a union event in 1194 to attach the Kingdom of Sicily to the German empire:

In 1194 Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor, became king of Sicily that remained under imperial (dynastic) control for long time.
The main time for it was under Frederick II:

However in generally I would like to see the Unions mechanism used a bit more, with additional smaller events (effecting only a small number of provinces, or even single province).
At the time being we only have rather large unions effecting whole civs.
My idea is to use them for much smaller events to reproduce, to some extent, the many dynastic changes in Europe.
The above idea of using the unions mechanism to assign the Kingdom of Sicily to Germany is an example of what I am thinking.

Spoiler :

Something like
HenryVI_Inheritance, 1194AD, Germany, <anybody>, (Sicily Apulia Calabria), False, 80, 100, False, False

Clearly the code for unions should be changed to allow union of provinces without a the control of a specific civ

 

[Michael Vick]

In the context of the game a Sicilian civ would be counterproductive for game-play (as Michael Vick) stated.
Historically the kingdom of Sicily was rather short lived (from 1130 to 1194), often being given as inheritance to other kingdoms (to the German, French, and Spanish).
The local history of Sicily can be better rendered in the game by an independent town, to be conquered by the Norse or acquired via unions mechanism.

Ideally there should be a union event in 1194 to attach the Kingdom of Sicily to the German empire:

In 1194 Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor, became king of Sicily that remained under imperial (dynastic) control for long time.
The main time for it was under Frederick II:

However in generally I would like to see the Unions mechanism used a bit more, with additional smaller events (effecting only a small number of provinces, or even single province).
At the time being we only have rather large unions effecting whole civs.
My idea is to use them for much smaller events to reproduce, to some extent, the many dynastic changes in Europe.
The above idea of using the unions mechanism to assign the Kingdom of Sicily to Germany is an example of what I am thinking.

Spoiler :

Something like
HenryVI_Inheritance, 1194AD, Germany, <anybody>, (Sicily Apulia Calabria), False, 80, 100, False, False

Clearly the code for unions should be changed to allow union of provinces without a the control of a specific civ

What if in any given game Castile or Aragon controls Sicily in 1194? You would re-assign it to a Germany civ that might not even be representative of the HRE at that point in the game? Sicily was a property of the Holy Roman Emperor for about 70 years, not enough to justify a personal union in my opinion.

I understand what you aim to accomplish with a system of many different smaller personal unions, It would be cool if the mod could play out history exactly as it happened in every part of the world except where the player is involved. A system of personal unions like that would essentially "take care" of history so that AI vs. AI wars would be irrelevant and there wouldn't be any freak occurrences (unhistoric disasters brought about by powerful AI civs) which would annoy the player trying to recreate history in his civ. That idea is actually attractive to some people, maybe there could be an alternate version with a high number of small unions, re-spawns, and enforced peace treaties to "keep history in check". The foundation of Protestantism and the corporations would be coded in their appropriate cities in the appropriate years so that history would basically play out as accurately as possible. The player could change this by doing things before the coded dates. Such a version of RFCE is possible, but I doubt people are going to go for implementing a lot of minor personal unions into the main version.

If Germany wants Sicily, then Germany should invade it with its troops, since that's what armies are for, right? Being ruled by the HRE for 70 isn't enough to put Sicily on the German war map though, the fact that Sicily is an HRE province should be enough in this case. Personal Unions are meant for events that can't be recreated easily by the AI yet are essential for historic accuracy. There is no way in hell that an AI Castile would manage to capture all of Aragon as well as pull off the necessary amphibious invasions to take all of the Mediterranean possessions as well, that's why we have the Spanish Union.

A good example of a necessary union that we don't have yet is the Union of Great Britain and Hanover. There's no way that an AI Britain would be able to invade Hanover on its own. There is no Hanover civ, so this union wouldn't conflict with the historic interests of any other civ.

I do expect, however, that RFCE 2.0 will introduce one, two or three more German states than are currently in RFCE++, that should mean more complicated unions.

 

[Rewjeo]

There is the Union of Great Britain and Hanover... it's just ridiculously overpowered if you're Germany. As Britain, you gain land around what would be Hannover, but as Germany you get the British Isles entirely.

 

[Michael Vick]

There is the Union of Great Britain and Hanover... it's just ridiculously overpowered if you're Germany. As Britain, you gain land around what would be Hannover, but as Germany you get the British Isles entirely.

I'm sure there'd be a codable way to prevent that where if Germany wins the union they only keep Hanover.

 

[wolfigor]

What if in any given game Castile or Aragon controls Sicily in 1194? You would re-assign it to a Germany civ that might not even be representative of the HRE at that point in the game?

No, like the current unions, this events will be a one-off with a specific degree of chance of being ever fired.
So, in this example, HRE will get the provinces once to simulate the dynastic event from real history.
If later on HRE looses those provinces there will be not another event to bring them back.
In short a one-off exactly like unions now, but limited in scope.

At the same time these minor unions (or dynastic events) could be used to shake-up the political status of Europe.
Some areas could be made "contested" by different countries are the right time and not necessary at spawn time (e.g. England can thus spawn without territories in France; the contested territories will come later with a dynastic event).

Personal Unions are meant for events that can't be recreated easily by the AI yet are essential for historic accuracy. There is no way in hell that an AI Castile would manage to capture all of Aragon as well as pull off the necessary amphibious invasions to take all of the Mediterranean possessions as well, that's why we have the Spanish Union.

Exactly the same reason for my idea about dynastic events.
At the time being unions are only between civs and the territory they control.
They don't really cover the case of a union related to provinces not controlled by any civ (or controlled by a civ other than the one specified).

A good example of a necessary union that we don't have yet is the Union of Great Britain and Hanover. There's no way that an AI Britain would be able to invade Hanover on its own. There is no Hanover civ, so this union wouldn't conflict with the historic interests of any other civ.

According to the code we do have it (in RFCE++ beta 4).
It should fire in 1715 with England as main actor and Germany as minor.
The events has a chance of 80% of firing and includes all the British provinces and the German province of Saxony.

However this is properly the case in which the AI should NOT invade Hanover: For England there is no strategic reason to invade, conquer, and defend such province.
The only reason England got involved with it was a dynastic event.
Such event, unlike the current code, should fire regardless if Hanover is owned by Germany: it should fire even if the province of Saxony is independent, or barbarian, or controlled by a civ other than Germany.

I'm sure there'd be a codable way to prevent that where if Germany wins the union they only keep Hanover.

A mechanism like the one I described would make it

The full list of unions and details:

Spoiler :

Name
UnionYear	main civ	secondary civ
List of provinces involved, Can also be left blank for an indefinite union
Union Kill: True == minor civ is killed in case of union
Union Chance: Chance the AI will propose/accept at Cautious relations, same religion and no vassalage
Multiplicator: This is how much score the primary gets, in percent
Ignore Religion: true/false
WorldWar: true/false if the union is enacted then every civ goes at war against every non friendly civ





MAGNUS_SWEDEN_NORWAY	
1320AD	Sweden	Norway
[]
False	30	150	False	False


OLAF_DENMARK_NORWAY	
1380AD	Denmark	Norway
[]
False	70	150	False	False


MARGARET_DENMARK_SWEDEN	
1380AD	Denmark	Sweden
[]
False	60	120	False	False


KREWO	
1386AD	Poland	Lithuania
GaliciaPoland GreaterPoland Masovia LesserPoland Lithuania Livonia Volhynia Podolia Minsk Polotsk Prussia
True	70	110	True	False	# Ignores religion since Lithuania was pagan at the time


SPAIN	
1478AD	Spain	Aragon,
RegionIberia Balears Sardinia Sicily Apulia Calabria
False	70	100	False	False


BURGUNDIAN_INHERITANCE	
1482AD	Frankia	Burgundy
Picardy Burgundy Provence Champagne Orleans Normandy
False	50	100	False	False


MIELNIK	
1500AD	Poland	Lithuania
[]
False	40	110	False	False


SPANISH_NETHERLANDS	
1523AD	Spain	Burgundy
Netherlands Flanders Leon GaliciaSpain Navarre Catalonia Castile Andalusia Valencia Balears Aragon
False	50	100	False	False


AUSTRIA_BOHEMIA	
1526AD	Austria	Bohemia,
Austria Carinthia Bohemia Moravia Silesia Bavaria UpperHungary
True	80	140	False	False


DENMARK_NORWAY	
1530AD	Denmark	Norway
[]
False	80	150	False	False


AUSTRIA_HUNGARY	
1560AD	Austria	Hungary
Austria Carinthia Bohemia Moravia Pannonia UpperHungary Hungary Transylvania Croatia Slavonia
True	80	180	False	False


LUBLIN	
1569AD	Poland	Lithuania,
GaliciaPoland GreaterPoland Masovia LesserPoland Lithuania Livonia Volhynia Podolia Minsk Polotsk Prussia
True	80	110	False	False


IBERIA	
1580AD	Spain	Portugal,
RegionIberia Balears Canaries Azores Madeira
True	50	70	False	False	# Spain gets a penalty, they should be huge enough at this point


BARBARY	
1580AD	Turkey	Tunisia
[]
False	50	100	False	False


CROWNS	
1600AD	England	Scotland
London Wessex Wales Scotland Ireland Mercia EastAnglia Northumbria TheIsles
True	70	100	False	False


PRUSSIA	
1618AD	Prussia	Germany
Prussia Brandenburg
False	75	200	False	False


PEREYASLAV	
1660AD	Moscow	iKiev
[]
False	80	100	False	False


HADIACH	
1660AD	Poland	Kiev
[]
False	50	100	False	False


SPANISH_SUCCESSION	
1700AD	iFrankia	iSpain
[]
False	40	110	False	True	# World war!


ACT_OF_UNION	
1707AD	England	Scotland
London Wessex Wales Scotland Ireland Mercia EastAnglia Northumbria TheIsles
True	80	100	True	False	# Late enough that religion is less of a factor


BRITAIN_HANOVER	
1715AD	England	Germany
RegionBritain Saxony
False	80	100	False	False

 

[Askiya]

I think there should be a way for civs to take colonies from each other during war. I'm not sure exactly how this would happen, but it would be pretty realistic (like Acadia being conquered from the French by the English).

 

[Emperor Bosco I]

I am fully in support of a Kingdom of Sicily, and I'm not sure what other people don't like about the idea. Historically, the Kingdom of Sicily was around, in one form or another, for 700 years. They were broken into two Kingdoms of Sicily and reformed into the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, but I don't know why that would make them undesireable. They were often under another country's rule, but that would be called a vassal, and we have a mechanic for that. They were around as long as and larger than the Genoan republic, which made the cut the first time around. More importantly, the area is dead space as is and needs to be filled. Since there are no other candidates, I say we add Sicily to the game.

And Scotland should definitely be in, as they technically conquered England rather than the other way around (King James).

Why are you balkanizing the Balkans, anyway?

EDIT: I agree with Askiya about the colonies thing. Maybe you recieve one if you take an Access resource?

 

[ezzlar]

Why would we want a one city civilization? This is a game and in some aspects it represents reality in a less realistic fashion. Size matters in Civ4.