RFCEurope 1.5

[DC123456789]

Well, you could say the same thing about Muscovy and Kiev.

 

[gilgames]

How would you distinct them from the independents then?

By flags

 

[AbsintheRed]

I would still love it if Rûm was added; it would force the Byzantines out of central Anatolia, it would be comparable in size to civs like Genoa and Burgundy, and its relationship to the Ottomans could be taken from other RFC mods--Ottomans could be a playable respawn of Rûm à la DoC, and Rûm would be crushed 9 times out of 10 by Anatolian Mongols like in SoI. Their UHVs could probably be to never lose a city, to control all of Anatolia and Greece by 1450, and....Islamic Faith Points, maybe? But then it's basically Bulgaria from the other side

I'm pretty sure the Ottomans aren't a respawn of the Seljuks in DoC, but yeah I'd agree that a Rum civ would be a good addition.

While Rum is a valid candidate, it won't be added along with the 4 already discussed civs.
There are already way too many planned changes for the mod.
Maybe we can get back to it later, who knows...

True, I just meant like Rome/Italy and Persia/Iran, just to not have to add a new civ

I don't think that would be much if an issue given how many civs RFCE has currently. Also, hasn't AbsintheRed already expressed how he really doesn't like respawns of civs as other polities?

Actually it's significantly better if their core/spawn area is more or less the same. Respawns can be done much more reasonably if that's the case.
But yeah, it's usually still much better for gameplay if they are totally separate.
If Rum will be added at one point to the mod, it will probably be done as a full civ.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Yeah, but in this case wouldn't the respawn make sense as one is the direct descendant of the other? If Rûm didn't collapse there would never be an Ottoman state

Well, you see the same anyway. I mean we can have the very same desired role ingame either way: both with having it as a separate civ and with having it as a respawn.
On the other hand, in the background (technical and coding point of view) it's much more straightforward to have them as a separate civ.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Personally, I don't have any trouble discerning Prussia/Lithuania and Aragon/Burgundy. Primary colors are similar, yes, but still different if you pay attention. And secondary colors are fine. But if you think it's absolutely necessary...

You could give Lithuania a bright red-and-blue as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania#/media/File:Coat_of_arms_of_Lithuania.svg It would be hard on the eyes, but still discernible from Poland and Muscovy.

But you could also make Leon purple(or red)-and-white (or gold) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe..._Arms.svg/2000px-Kingdom_of_Leon_Arms.svg.png) and then swap the primary/secondary of Aragon.

Thanks!
I also don't consider Prussia-Lithuania and Burgundy-Aragon that close. Well, maybe on the minimap.
So not necessary but it could be made better. On the other hand the border merge of Genoa-Prussia is a real issue.

Thus Prussia is probably the one which should be changed. Also Aragon I guess, the color of Burgundy is kinda given.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I have absolutely no idea. Something that reflects its status as a junior partner in the union?

It doesn't really work that way for other civs either.
Check the reference file, we already have quite a few DCNames, you will see the general pattern.

By flags

No, the already mentioned border merge would be an even bigger issue with independents.
Also, the main thing we want to achieve is that color+position are unique enough for each civ.

 

[cmakk1012]

While Rum is a valid candidate, it won't be added along with the 4 already discussed civs.
There are already way too many planned changes for the mod.
Maybe we can get back to it later, who knows...


Actually it's significantly better if their core/spawn area is more or less the same. Respawns can be done much more reasonably if that's the case.
But yeah, it's usually still much better for gameplay if they are totally separate.
If Rum will be added at one point to the mod, it will probably be done as a full civ.

I think Anatolia is adequately represented for now, especially considering the parts of the map currently in greater need of new civs. Which are the four that have been discussed again? Egypt, Tunisia, Crimea...Sicily?

 

[AbsintheRed]

Which are the four that have been discussed again? Egypt, Tunisia, Crimea...Sicily?

Yep, those 4.
Btw, Egypt, Tunisia and Crimea are getting clear for an initial implementation, but there are still lots of things to discuss with Sicily.
I have some basic ideas for it, but probably a separate brainstorming thread would be great for them.
Art, leaders, civ color, UP, UHV, UU/UB, and anything related. Let's hear everyone's suggestions.

 

[Mouthwash]

UUs: Mamluks for Egypt, Norman Knights for Sicily, Tatar Horse Archers for Crimea, and Barbary Corsairs for Tunisia. The only UB I can think of is Slave Markets for Crimea.

Egypt is always yellow (unless you want to be different), and green looks pretty suitable for Tunisia. Maybe pink for Sicily?

I'm not familiar enough with the game to suggest unique powers or historical victories.

A question: are you also expanding the map to the south?

 

[cmakk1012]

Alright, trying to read up on Sicily to get a good idea. Lots of interesting info on Norman-Arab-Byzantine culture and how for the first two centuries of Sicily this syncretic culture flourished, so maybe a cultural UB? Norman Cathedral? The cathedral at Monreale is very famous. One of the UHVs could involve culture too, or else great people, seeing as how Sicily supported luminaries from many different cultures.

Apparently Roger II planned on establishing an empire encompassing Tunisia, Egypt, and the Crusader States before he died; maybe a conquest UHV of Tunis and Egypt, would be quite challenging from such a small power base.

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

A question: are you also expanding the map to the south?

I can't speak for Absinthe, but that's come up a bunch of times before and the answer's always been no. Apparently adding even one line of tiles at the southern edge basically means re-writing the entire map.

 

[Mouthwash]

Why is that?

 

[merijn_v1]

The map coordinates start at the bottom. Adding tiles to the bottom requires the coordinates of EVERY tiles to be changed. Also, all other coordinate-related stuff (flipzones, core, stabilitymaps, cnm, spawning spot, spawning resources and many other things) need to be adjusted. Basically everything that is connected to the map needs to be changed, and that's a lot.

And for what? The only relevant tiles that we would get are 3 tiles in Egypt for each row we add. The rest is just useless desert or ocean. Do note that the AI does takes all extra tiles into account for making decisions, which takes up extra time. It will slow down the game, with adding virtually nothing. And it is certainly not worth the work it requires.

 

[gilgames]

No, the already mentioned border merge would be an even bigger issue with independents.
Also, the main thing we want to achieve is that color+position are unique enough for each civ.

IT's been long due in my mind, to ask you to separate the four indy's flag. like + x - and a big dot, idk. just to make them different, this way you know who you attack too.

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

IT's been long due in my mind, to ask you to separate the four indy's flag. like + x - and a big dot, idk. just to make them different, this way you know who you attack too.

Oh that'd be so nice. Much better than my current method of "look on the military advisor map to figure out which ones are which and then and ALT-S a '3' on all the Indy-3 cities".

 

[AbsintheRed]

IT's been long due in my mind, to ask you to separate the four indy's flag. like + x - and a big dot, idk. just to make them different, this way you know who you attack too.

Oh that'd be so nice. Much better than my current method of "look on the military advisor map to figure out which ones are which and then and ALT-S a '3' on all the Indy-3 cities".

Yeah, I also think it would be helpful for the players.
While having 4 separate flags will make it even more obvious that the indy cities are of 4 different teams, I guess everyone knows it anyway, so it's not a big loss in immersion.

 

[gilgames]

sweet

 

[Ecthy]

I played 1.5 for the first time last night (thanks for the release!) and fired up a game as Muscovy from the 500 AD start. Upon spawning, I spotted a city called Moskva to the west of my starting position, and when it flipped, change its name to Rzhev. Intended to be founded as Moskva? Can make a screenshot if requested.

Also, one city to the south of Moskva is called "Voronjeh", so it seems like those consonants at the word's end got mixed up?

 

[AbsintheRed]

I played 1.5 for the first time last night (thanks for the release!) and fired up a game as Muscovy from the 500 AD start. Upon spawning, I spotted a city called Moskva to the west of my starting position, and when it flipped, change its name to Rzhev. Intended to be founded as Moskva? Can make a screenshot if requested.

Also, one city to the south of Moskva is called "Voronjeh", so it seems like those consonants at the word's end got mixed up?

Both the map itself and the city name map for Russia could use some updates.
Right now there are quite a few inconsistencies, even with province/city relations.
Hopefully we (as in the community) will be able to fix most of it for 1.6.
I will need quite some help in it, especially in the city name map.

 

[SanJose]

Ecthy, work on the city name map is under way, at the moment ready for the Galicia-Volyn, Kiev and Chernigov Principalities, now work for Principality of Ryazan'-Murom.