RFCE Leaders

[Pangur Bán]

There's no reason they should be particularly close. The two were close in history for a period because after the Jadwiga marriage the Poles took their Lithuanian rulers hostage so to speak, but this wasn't inevitable and Lithuania's ties to Russia were usually stronger. Using the Poles to represent Lithuanians would be like using the Greeks to represent the Romans. The pagan Lithuanian empire is a real historic alternative worth the fun, Poland is really just one of several Germanized Slavic states.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I think if you can get the Dutch in W Europe, you can get anyone in the east. Incidentally if you do add a Lithuanian leader the best candidate is Gediminas. The latter doesn't have the stories that popularize Mindaugas and Vytautas in modern Catholic Lithuania, but he is of far greater historical significance.

The decision in not up to me, it's 3Miro's and merijn's call
But I strongly support the idea, as I said was already toying around with this in my head

As of the leaders: Mindaugas (1200-1263) and Gediminas (1275-1341) are too close on the timeline. Mindaugas is also important (was the first known ruler of Lithuania), and we have great art for him. Anyway, both can represent the pagan Lithuanian state
Lithuania had it's greatest territory under Vytautas (1350-1430), he should definitely be in as a second leader. Here is the art

 

[merijn_v1]

I know that adding another civ is a realy big job. And we already have many civs. I'm not in favor of it.

 

[Pangur Bán]

As of the leaders: Mindaugas (1200-1263) and Gediminas (1275-1341) are too close on the timeline. Mindaugas is also important (was the first ruler), and we have great art for him
Vytautas (1392-1430), their most famous ruler should definitely be in as a second leader. Here is the art

He wasn't the first ruler; he's only famous for his interactions with the Germans, much the way Moctezuma is famous because of the Spanish. Vytautas was an under-ruler for much of the time. Gediminas turned his polity from one of many pagan Baltic tribes to a great state that ruled much of eastern Europe. After him its Jogaila. I wouldn't worry about the art, unless the names are printed across them. I mean, what difference does it make, who the creator intended them for?

 

[Barratt_87]

I realize we're not going to get any new civs but I'd love to see scotland as it was independent up to the 1700's and it would give a new challenge to england.. Barbarians, even with tons of highlanders are just not as much of a challenge as another civ... Too bad its too late now.

 

[AbsintheRed]

He wasn't the first ruler; he's only famous for his interactions with the Germans, much the way Moctezuma is famous because of the Spanish. Vytautas was an under-ruler for much of the time. Gediminas turned his polity from one of many pagan Baltic tribes to a great state that ruled much of eastern Europe. After him its Jogaila. I wouldn't worry about the art, unless the names are printed across them. I mean, what difference does it make, who the creator intended them for?

Yeah, sry. I was still editing my post...
I have no problems with Gediminas himself
Just the fact that he is close both to Mindaugas and to Vytautas on the timeline

 

[AbsintheRed]

I realize we're not going to get any new civs but I'd love to see scotland as it was independent up to the 1700's and it would give a new challenge to england.. Barbarians, even with tons of highlanders are just not as much of a challenge as another civ... Too bad its too late now.

There is no real room for Scotland
So adding Scotland won't worth the work - we won't get a real new civ, just a new puppet for England to defeat

 

[3Miro]

The North-East has a big void and it shouldn't be. I am working on some tools now to help edit the existing maps, this is one thing I have never done before and I will have to. We still need to work on Russian city name maps anyway.

By far the biggest issue is the city names. If someone can do that map, then spawn and war maps would be easy. City names are a lot of work/research and are best done by someone who actually lives there.

With a city name map, we can include Lithuania. This will put some pressure on Russia too, right now, they are just spamming settlers in a gigantic void.

Spawn: 1236AD.

UP: The power of the Pagan faith. +1 Happy +2 Culture in all cities so long as you don't have state religion.

UHV: 1. Do not declare a state religion until 1377AD
2. Control the territory from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea (including Kiev and Novogorod) in 1410AD.
3. Conquer or Vassalize Poland and Moscow.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Spawn: 1236AD.

UP: The power of the Pagan faith. +1 Happy +2 Culture in all cities so long as you don't have state religion.

UHV: 1. Do not declare a state religion until 1377AD
2. Control the territory from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea (including Kiev and Novogorod) in 1410AD.
3. Conquer or Vassalize Poland and Moscow.

Sounds great to me. If merijn is ok with adding Lithuania, let's do that
And yeah, the city maps are a pain...
Anyway, I may start on the Lithuanian one (and finalize my hungarian changes) after my last exam (next thursday)

EDIT: Maybe the 1st UHV should be 1386: "Jogaila was duly baptised at the Wawel Cathedral in Kraków on 15 February 1386 and from then on formally used the name Władysław or Latin versions of it"

 

[3Miro]

Sounds great to me. If merijn is ok with it, let's do that
And yeah, the city maps are a pain...
Anyway, I may start on the Lithuanian one (and finalize my hungarian changes) after my last exam (next thursday)

For the city names, use the WB. Basically start a game (preferably with the Byzantines), enter the WB and put labels on every tile that we would expect to have it conquered or settled by Lithuania. Than I can convert the WB to a Python array (I have been working one couple of such utilities for some time now).

The rules for city names are:
- Names are in English alphabet avoiding special characters whenever possible (you know the problems arising).
- Names must correspond to a local pronunciation, not a westernization of one name or another (like Slavs would not say Ragusa, but Dobrovnik).
- Except for capitals, pre-build independents and perhaps some very special city, all names should occupy territory of no more than 2x2 (otherwise you get two cities with the same name).

 

[merijn_v1]

If you are going to include Lithuania, go ahead. But I won't be able much, because I don't know much about there history etc. and I don't have the right coding skills. If you have everything ready, I can help with XML and art.

But if there is something I can help with, please say so and I'll look what I can do.

 

[3Miro]

If you are going to include Lithuania, go ahead. But I won't be able much, because I don't know much about there history etc. and I don't have the right coding skills. If you have everything ready, I can help with XML and art.

But if there is something I can help with, please say so and I'll look what I can do.

Adding a new civ in RFC is a huge task. Very early on, I redid a lot of that code for RFCE and now adding a civ is not nearly as hard. However, we still need the maps and perhaps more importantly, we need to balance the new civ. Lithuania would actually help balancing other nations.

If between AbsintheRed and you, you can get the art and XML added (just art and XML), then I will add them to the map and Python code.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Cool
I think I will make a new thread for this
Probably we can get many ideas for UU, UB and everything else

 

[ezzlar]

Lithuania would add a much needed civ on the empty eastern front. Poland isnt really up to filling all that space as a tech back-water and few resources next to a powerful neighbour (Germany).

But adding another civ would probably be much work and re-testing all balance issues and game play happenings. Getting out of beta would be a nice first stop!

Lithuania could probably vassal Poland eventually and we get the union

edit: Saw 3miros post now. Nice!

 

[merijn_v1]

@ 3Miro

If you start on the Lithuania thing, please don't touch the text-XML files. I'm currently working on them. Please wait until my next revision before you touch them.

 

[3Miro]

@ 3Miro

If you start on the Lithuania thing, please don't touch the text-XML files. I'm currently working on them. Please wait until my next revision before you touch them.

I intended to change many of the UHV conditions (years and such) to match the Time-Line. Are you working on those (it is just one file). I want to make changes to the entire Victory.py modules (which will affect other Python things as well), so please don't upload changes to Python (you can send those to me, so I can merge them).

 

[merijn_v1]

I only change the XML files which start with: CIV4GameTextInfos_ . (And the CIV4GameText_Stability.xml . But here I only deleted a non-used section) I don't touch the python filesat all.

 

[3Miro]

@merijn_v1: no problem then.

On another note: Pretty much every nation has more than one leader now. We should add Ivan Asen II for Bulgaria also. Change him after 1185AD. He was the most powerful ruler of the second dynasty (and Empire). He had almost as much territory as Simeon, however, unlike Simeon he did most this with diplomacy and political marriages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Asen_II_of_Bulgaria

 

[AbsintheRed]

On another note: Pretty much every nation has more than one leader now. We should add Ivan Asen II for Bulgaria also. Change him after 1185AD. He was the most powerful ruler of the second dynasty (and Empire). He had almost as much territory as Simeon, however, unlike Simeon he did most this with diplomacy and political marriages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Asen_II_of_Bulgaria

Yep, he was already on my planned-to-add-leaders list
Either him or Kaloyan to represent the Second Bulgarian Empire
The only reason I didn't add one of them in my latest leader update is because I didn't find proper art...

 

[3Miro]

Yep, he was already on my planned-to-add-leaders list
Either him or Kaloyan to represent the Second Bulgarian Empire
The only reason I didn't add one of them in my latest leader update is because I didn't find proper art...

Yes, Kaloyan is the runner-up, it is just that he had a short reign. Kaloyan is more famous to the west because of his treaty with the Pope, where he was trying to prevent trouble with the Crusaders (and the Pope trying to convert Bulgaria). Then when that failed (because the Crusaders were under the control the Venetian doge and not the Pope), he fought and defeated the forth Crusade in a single battle in 1205AD, capturing and later killing Baldwin. Kaloyan established Bulgaria back in the position of a major player, moving from the defensive/survival position of his brothers Asen I and Peter II, to an aggressive stance.

After Kaloyan's assassination, the country had a puppet Tsar for a while, until Ivan Asen II managed to regain his rightful throne (he is the son of Asen I, nephew of Kaloyan and Kaloyan had no kids, the puppet Boril was a cousin of Asen I). It was during Ivan Asen II's rule that Bulgaria managed to establish complete hegemony over the Balkans, with only Constantinople and Thessaloníki retaining some independence as vassals. Considering his longer rule and larger Empire, Ivan Asen II should be the right choice.