RFCEurope 1.3

[AbsintheRed]

My main idea was just to use those civs UUs as mercs for the main mod.

Example: Manluks are in RFCE ++ only, but in the main mod Arabia could get their UU as a merc (probably tied to the egypt province)

In the same vein, Austria could get bohemian war wagons as a merc tied to the Bohemia (possibly Moravia as well) province, civs controlling Serbia can hire the Serbian UU as a merc, etc. or they could also be barbs to represent revolts/independence movements in those regions (like how RFCE++ has the Hussite revolt using War Wagons).

Just a way to use those extra units in the main mod while it's not including the extra civs (the Turcoman Horse Archer is already a barb unit no? I see it in the civlopedia).

Sure, we can add the rest of them too
I just added Turcoman Horse Archer and Bedouin yesterday, as barbs

 

[AbsintheRed]

Yeah... I might take a look at it later, some of the names there do seem a bit misplaced.

Alright
But about Leicester
Was it more important than Nottingham?

 

[DC123456789]

I think so. Both formed one of the Five Boroughs of the Danelaw and became county towns, but Leicester was an important Middle Anglian centre and was also the seat of a bisphoric before the Viking invasions, as well as also being an old Roman town (as Ratae Corieltauvorum).

 

[AbsintheRed]

@Shadow Warlord:
Just checked:
The only units not used in RFCE:
Crimean Tatar Rider, Bohemian War Wagon, Serbian Vlastela, Egyptian Mamluk, Lombard Militia

The Tatar Rider and the Militia doesn't seem that good choices, but will add the other 3 soon enough

 

[AbsintheRed]

I think so. Both formed one of the Five Boroughs of the Danelaw and became county towns, but Leicester was an important Middle Anglian centre and was also the seat of a bisphoric before the Viking invasions, as well as also being an old Roman town (as Ratae Corieltauvorum).

Yeah, was reading on the subject in the last couple days
Also checked Leicester among a lot of other towns. In the end went with Nottingham, but I'm not married to that thought at all

If I change it to Leicester, I guess it should spawn in 680 (with the bishopric status)
What should be the starting name? Ligeraceaster? Or just call him (her? does cities have a gender in english grammar?) Leicester, right on spawn?

 

[DC123456789]

Ligeraceaster sounds fine.

Use it, him and her are basically only used for people and personified things (mostly pets and ships or in a poetic way). And no, English basically only uses natural gender.

 

[srpt]

I still like Gloucester. I don't know how important it was during the Danish invasions but it was one of the bigger Roman towns and it overlaps the other cities a lot less.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Ligeraceaster sounds fine.

Use it, him and her are basically only used for people and personified things (mostly pets and ships or in a poetic way). And no, English basically only uses natural gender.

But countries are still referred to as her, right?

I still like Gloucester. I don't know how important it was during the Danish invasions but it was one of the bigger Roman towns and it overlaps the other cities a lot less.

Yeah, it would have been my first choice too, if I didn't want to keep those cities closer to the eastern region of England.
Cities in eastern England for Denmark to conquer, and barbs in western to represent to anglo-saxon resistance to Danish rule. That was the idea behind it

 

[DC123456789]

But countries are still referred to as her, right?

You could, but normally you would use "it" for countries as well.

 

[Panopticon]

I've attached suggestions for the England, Wales and Ireland city name map; changes are in red. I haven't done anything about Scotland. Many of the changes involve the addition of historically-significant cities in place of duplicate names or of cities like Birmingham and Brighton that weren't important in this era.

 

[Swarbs]

I've attached suggestions for the England, Wales and Ireland city name map; changes are in red. I haven't done anything about Scotland. Many of the changes involve the addition of historically-significant cities in place of duplicate names or of cities like Birmingham and Brighton that weren't important in this era.

Imo that map includes a lot of very small places which weren't really significant enough to count in a CNM. I'd lean more towards having historically important cities given more squares rather than small places being included. For example I'd say York should replace Hull (not founded until 12th century) and the top square for Grimsby (small fishing village until 1201).

Also King's Lynn is ahistorical - it wasn't called that until 1537. Ely is a better option if we want another place of historical significance in East Anglia. Similarly Lyme Regis was just Lyme until 1284.

 

[Panopticon]

Imo that map includes a lot of very small places which weren't really significant enough to count in a CNM. I'd lean more towards having historically important cities given more squares rather than small places being included. For example I'd say York should replace Hull (not founded until 12th century) and the top square for Grimsby (small fishing village until 1201).

Also King's Lynn is ahistorical - it wasn't called that until 1537. Ely is a better option if we want another place of historical significance in East Anglia. Similarly Lyme Regis was just Lyme until 1284.

Thanks for reading. Given that the English begin with the Conquest of William, I think 11th century foundations are more than legitimate. Some of these cities were much more relatively important in the medieval period than today. York doesn't matter much because it's preplaced, but if it's razed, isn't it silly to see it refounded as a coastal fishing town? Or further south, Cambridge or Ely as a port? This seems very silly to someone familiar with this part of the world.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Thanks for reading. Given that the English begin with the Conquest of William, I think 11th century foundations are more than legitimate. Some of these cities were much more relatively important in the medieval period than today. York doesn't matter much because it's preplaced, but if it's razed, isn't it silly to see it refounded as a coastal fishing town? Or further south, Cambridge or Ely as a port? This seems very silly to someone familiar with this part of the world.

In Civ IV one can (and probably should) also interpret cities to represent their surrounding area too.
Especially on a scale like this (if we had a similar-sized map about England only, I would probably agree with you)
IMO it's perfectly fine to make major cities be coastal ingame, even if they are 20-50 km from the sea
It only means that the region is still capable for naval development too

Having said that, I like some of your suggestions
Also agree with you that historically significant cities founded in the 11-12th century is legitimate for the english map, at least in some places
DC123456789 also said he would like to improve the British city name map, you should make contact with him
Even better: someone can make a new thread about this, and everyone can discuss it in detail
Using ingame WB pics instead of an xml table is probably better though
I will include the changes when you guys reach a concensus

 

[Swarbs]

Thanks for reading. Given that the English begin with the Conquest of William, I think 11th century foundations are more than legitimate. Some of these cities were much more relatively important in the medieval period than today. York doesn't matter much because it's preplaced, but if it's razed, isn't it silly to see it refounded as a coastal fishing town? Or further south, Cambridge or Ely as a port? This seems very silly to someone familiar with this part of the world.

I'd be happy with the CNM being based on the 11th century foundations, but it seems a bit of a stretch to include places like Hull, Lyme Regis and Kings Lynn which didn't exist at any scale until long after the Normans invaded.

Also, if you take your view around coastal cities then York shouldn't exist at all, as it is currently a coastal city in the game. Similarly with London - should we rename it Gravesend as London isn't on the coast?

Personally I'd rather see the major cities featured in a slightly ahistorical area, particularly because as Absinthe notes each square on the map represents around a 50km sided square IRL. That, imo is much preferable to having ahistorical settlements and fishing villages raised to full city status just because they are on the coast.

 

[ales_]

By the way, during the timeline of the mod, Westminster, not London, was the capital of England.

 

[Shadow Warlord]

By the way, during the timeline of the mod, Westminster, not London, was the capital of England.

There isn't a really good way to show this though. Both cities basically border each other and while Westminster was the administrative center, London was larger and also the commercial center. I think it's fine as is staying London.

 

[AbsintheRed]

There isn't a really good way to show this though. Both cities basically border each other and while Westminster was the administrative center, London was larger and also the commercial center. I think it's fine as is staying London.

My thoughts exactly
While it would be fun to represent this somehow (the fact that Westminster was the political and administrative capital for quite a while is not that well-known), I don't see a good way for it ingame

 

[Swarbs]

Technically Westminster still is the administrative capital, more so after 1965 when it was given city status with boundaries containing the parliament, Buckingham Palace and pretty much every government department.

But then if we go down that road then there's also Versailles instead of Paris and Vatican instead of Rome etc. Just gets confusing!

 

[AbsintheRed]

@Merijn
Just to be sure: you didn't touched anything in the scenario file in your last commit, only renamed it, right?

 

[merijn_v1]

@Merijn
Just to be sure: you didn't touched anything in the scenario file in your last commit, only renamed it, right?

Yeah. I only changed the name.

I actually didn't want to upload it yet, but I forgot to uncheck it. As it doesn't change anything else (IIRC), I didn't undo the change.