RFCE 2.0 brainstorming thread
- Thread starter AbsintheRed
- Start date
Frederick II, Stupor Mundi: king of Sicily, emperor of the HRE, king of Jerusalem and more.
Great Idea. As it is now, Naples and Sicily are rarely conquered up until the Empires are so huge and powerful. Spain is the one who usually takes Naples (as I guess it's still a OK province to them in 1.0, but I didn't check), and Sicily may hold its position until the end of the game, if no one is brave enough to take a huge amount of troops to conquer it.
In my games Italy is always a target for expansion for two reasons: Venice and Genoa are usually weak (at least up to 1500 when, if one of them survived, it should be powerful) and Florentia and Naples are always independent and no one wants them (only in the case of Genoa or even Venice sometimes, but it ends up in the first reason). Allied to that, Italy is easy to protect (and that's why no one wants it, or no one wants it and because of that it's easy to defend, or both, or not, but it's easy to keep it anyway).
A Kingdom of Sicily seems nice to fill that area and make it more challenged.
In my games Italy is always a target for expansion for two reasons: Venice and Genoa are usually weak (at least up to 1500 when, if one of them survived, it should be powerful) and Florentia and Naples are always independent and no one wants them (only in the case of Genoa or even Venice sometimes, but it ends up in the first reason). Allied to that, Italy is easy to protect (and that's why no one wants it, or no one wants it and because of that it's easy to defend, or both, or not, but it's easy to keep it anyway).
A Kingdom of Sicily seems nice to fill that area and make it more challenged.
krieger546
Chieftain
Actually, for some reason Sicily is OK for Spain while Naples is unstable.
Thx for the correction krieger, but curiously Sicily often remains independent and Naples gets captured (not always of course), maybe it's their warmaps (I think that's how it's called), and the fact that Sicily, if left undisturbed, is a powerful fortress from the Pirate Age onward.
A Kingdom of Sicily would make the region more disputed
A Kingdom of Sicily would make the region more disputed
urban
Chieftain
With Aragon from rfce++ , Sicily does get conquered. I'm torn on Sicily, I think it'd be fun, but I don't want to take away from the Aragon game.
But version 2.0, with the new map, will basically be a totally different mod, so all the fine tuning of UHV does not belong to this discussion but in the playtesting feedback thread. The UHVs and balance will have to be redone almost entirely.
Emperor Bosco I
Guiding the flock
That means more cities for new nations too, probably, huh? That solves that arguement.
deadeye943
Chieftain
I think everyone who is suggesting new civs should also give possible historic victory conditions. You guys are suggesting civs like Saxony and Sicily, but the developers might have a hard time coming up with victory conditions. In the future when you guys suggest civs also give possible, realistic, and challenging victory conditions. And I also don't think you should suggest civs from RFCE++ because I think they're all being added in in RFCE 2.0.
The most important civ they should bring over though in my opinion is probably Prussia, just because when Lithuania starts out they have no one to challenge their non-Christian beleifs. The historic northern crusade would never occur.
The most important civ they should bring over though in my opinion is probably Prussia, just because when Lithuania starts out they have no one to challenge their non-Christian beleifs. The historic northern crusade would never occur.
deadeye943
Chieftain
I also think that Armenia and Georgia should have historic victory conditions similar with the Armenia and Georgia in Sword of Islam. Also both the Ottomans and Russians should be going for the Caucasaus, causing more wars between them.
A problem I find in the RFCE++ is that there isn't incentive to switch to Protestanism. The only reason I'm doing it is because my civ actually did it in history because I like playing my games historically. I like the dawn of civilization idea of getting gold if you switched to protestant. Right now Catholicism gives greater benefits because of the pope and you also get a free religious prosecutor or extra stability.
I like the idea of massacring religious populations after conquering cities. This concept was used in the Sword of Islam and it was very useful. The only problem I see with it is that maybe the midevil Muslim world might've been much more violent than midevil Europe. I don't think this is the case but then again I'm more familiar with Europeon history than Islam world history.
One more thing. The HRE I find kind of unbalanced because playing as Germany, Austria, and sometimes France I take almost the entire territory of the HRE. When we all go to vote it pretty much comes to me deciding on who the next emperor will be but I can never choose myself. So it always comes to being tiny civs who didn't deserve the title in the first place. I think one of the major changes should be having the ability to vote for yourself.
A problem I find in the RFCE++ is that there isn't incentive to switch to Protestanism. The only reason I'm doing it is because my civ actually did it in history because I like playing my games historically. I like the dawn of civilization idea of getting gold if you switched to protestant. Right now Catholicism gives greater benefits because of the pope and you also get a free religious prosecutor or extra stability.
I like the idea of massacring religious populations after conquering cities. This concept was used in the Sword of Islam and it was very useful. The only problem I see with it is that maybe the midevil Muslim world might've been much more violent than midevil Europe. I don't think this is the case but then again I'm more familiar with Europeon history than Islam world history.
One more thing. The HRE I find kind of unbalanced because playing as Germany, Austria, and sometimes France I take almost the entire territory of the HRE. When we all go to vote it pretty much comes to me deciding on who the next emperor will be but I can never choose myself. So it always comes to being tiny civs who didn't deserve the title in the first place. I think one of the major changes should be having the ability to vote for yourself.
ezzlar
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,843
You dont get extra stability for catholicism. Thats orthodoxy!
Catholicism faith point bonus: Free gold, free religious buildings (and crusades until printing press)
Orthodoxy faith point bonus: Extra stability and cheaper civic maintenance costs
Islam faith point bonus: Cheaper units and quicker city growth
Protestantism faith point bonus: Cheaper wonders and science
That makes catholicism the worst. Or was something changed for RFCE++?
Catholicism faith point bonus: Free gold, free religious buildings (and crusades until printing press)
Orthodoxy faith point bonus: Extra stability and cheaper civic maintenance costs
Islam faith point bonus: Cheaper units and quicker city growth
Protestantism faith point bonus: Cheaper wonders and science
That makes catholicism the worst. Or was something changed for RFCE++?
absinthered said that the new map will be bigger then the one we use now, and if I'm not mistaken that will increase even the geographical area. I suppose we could use a stub map to think which civs could be introduced just by seeing all the area that's part of the map. Is there a definite new geographical area for the civ? And maybe even an already tiled proportion for the new map? If not we could begin thinking about it.
If we expand over the Mideast up to Iran we could use some civs from the sword of islam like Abbasids, Fatimids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, Sultanate of Rum, Karaman, Zenghid.
If we expand South we can have Makuria, Ethiopia, Yemen and maybe some civ in North Africa.
Selyuqs could be a civ like in SoI and RFCE++. We could even introduce the crusader states. Kingdom of Cilicia like in SoI would be awesome, and of course Armenia and Georgia too.
If we expand over the Mideast up to Iran we could use some civs from the sword of islam like Abbasids, Fatimids, Ayyubids, Mamluks, Sultanate of Rum, Karaman, Zenghid.
If we expand South we can have Makuria, Ethiopia, Yemen and maybe some civ in North Africa.
Selyuqs could be a civ like in SoI and RFCE++. We could even introduce the crusader states. Kingdom of Cilicia like in SoI would be awesome, and of course Armenia and Georgia too.
deadeye943
Chieftain
No, what I meant was that after the founding of Protestanism, Catholic nations have the choice to either have extra stability, or a religious prosecutor to stamp out the new heathen religion. But I didn't know of all the benefits provided by each of these religions. Now I understand why you would want to switch to Protestanism because of the science boost. Where did you find the list for the religion benefits?
ezzlar
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2001
- Messages
- 1,843
It is in the civiliopedia I think. There is a "religion overhaul" maybe in odds and end part.
But that extra stability thing is a RFCE++ concept that I have missed. In that case its a bit better than I expected! In vanilla RFCE you get nothing as catholic during reformation.
But that extra stability thing is a RFCE++ concept that I have missed. In that case its a bit better than I expected! In vanilla RFCE you get nothing as catholic during reformation.
deadeye943
Chieftain
Well I guess that's why we're using RFCE++ as our starting point to make 2.0. Even so, I think Spirictum's idea for the crusader states would be good. States like Antiocha and Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Emperor Bosco I
Guiding the flock
@deadeye: The Muslims were actually more tolerant of other religions than Christians were. When the Christians took Jerusalem, they got rid of all the Muslims they could find. When the Muslims took it back, they allowed the Christian civilians to stay and allowed Christian pilgrimages.
deadeye943
Chieftain
So we should allow the massacre of other religions in RFCE 2.0? Did Catholics do this to Orthodox Christians, or vice versa? I'm not sure Europe itself was as violent with other religions as the Middle East.
