Rhye's of Europe Civ Discussion Thread

[sedna17]

I'm not totally sure moving thier start date back is going to help decline thier power(they could probably still get to the height they normally do).

Well, if you start them weaker they don't have as much time to catch up. You're probably right though, it doesn't seem like the right solution.

 

[embryodead]

I haven't really played Poland in Alpha8, I'll try again when St.Lucifer's map/spawns are implemented. In my Alpha7 game the easy mode resulted simply from the fact that Poland had no opponents. Germany used to be extremely weak, and Kiev always collapsed (I mean, this happened across all my games). Not sure if barbs changed in a8, but I never saw any Mongols in a7, except when taking almost defenseless Kievan cities that Mongols settled in. This isn't exactly bad as Mongols kind of won a battle and never came back. The real threat to Poland should be the Teutonic Order, but I'm not sure how to reflect that with it being a corp.

Moving the start date makes no sense IMO, there's a clear birth date that is reflected in the mod atm. Spain was no less fragmented and you have it as a single state from the beginning. Less techs / slower research makes sense, however, as compared to Western Europe, Poland and even more so Lithuania & Ruthenia were rather backwards in science and economics, at least until late middle ages (but even then, the economy was too dependent on agriculture).

One thing I really need to stress is that the Polish UU, Heavy Hussar, is a Renaissance unit, 16-18th c. (atm Heavy Hussars appear around 12th c.). It really, really, really should replace Cuirassier, not Knight, despite it being a lancer-type unit (that was the deal about it, Husaria successfully used heavy armor & lances, generally obsolete in Europe, vs. pikes and muskets). If historicity isn't enough, it'd fit their late UHVs better as well.

 

[jessiecat]

Well, if you start them weaker they don't have as much time to catch up. You're probably right though, it doesn't seem like the right solution.

I think slowing their tech rate and making their unit build rate more costly might be the answer.

BTW Were you able to check my Hungary saved game on the Bugs thread? The UHV is definitely not working properly.

 

[sedna17]

Okay, I played Poland up through 1450. Enough to know that the first UHV is easy, I was the largest population by a long shot already. Too many resources, so my cities reached sizes 10+. A lot of very good land as well. Maybe some more (dense) forests would help slow things down. Hungary was very powerful in this game, but I had no trouble making peace with all my neighbors, and they had plenty of space so no reason to attack.

Tech was already a bit poor due to rapid expansion, but I was able to trade around and keep pretty modern. A couple mongols reached my borders, but overall they were a blessing because they killed Kiev and I was able to roll up most of those cities without a real fight. Black death should be more devastating of course.

micbic: feel free to post your balance changes to the SVN.

 

[The Turk]

This is exactly what I said before, (and I think you guys are implementing this). There should be A LOT more dense forest or basically forest that cannot be cut down until the late game all over Northern Europe. This will slow down the originally backwards Germany and other North European nations (including I would say England). Then let them cut it down and it will bring about a production BOOM! and with this boom it will really make them powerful!

 

[embryodead]

This is exactly what I said before, (and I think you guys are implementing this). There should be A LOT more dense forest or basically forest that cannot be cut down until the late game all over Northern Europe. This will slow down the originally backwards Germany and other North European nations (including I would say England). Then let them cut it down and it will bring about a production BOOM! and with this boom it will really make them powerful!

Like I said before, England was one of the least forested countries in Europe in the Middle Ages and it got worse and worse, there were shortages of timber well before late Middle Ages. The main stoppers of growth in Europe were things like lack of sanitation and overall poor health (which at the moment isn't reflected at all with all the surplus Health). People were literally shitting under themselves and throwing trash and excrements out of the window, fresh water was scarce as everything was polluted, drinking diluted ale/wine was necessary not to get sick. Life expectancy in the Muslim world was roughly twice as high as in Europe.

With regards to Poland, it certainly was more forested (according to our local sources, completely forested minus river valleys, much like the Baltic areas). This changed rapidly with German settlers pouring in during the 12-14th c. period.

Also mines & mills buildable over forests allow even production output per tile than BTS, and as a result any city next to forest/hills & forest/rivers can have very high production well before any forests can be cut (I never cut them, actually, they're too good).

 

[sedna17]

Currently the tech which allows forest chopping (Plate Armor) already comes pretty late:

1000-1250
In the 11th century, people began to move outward into the wilderness, in what is known as the "great clearances". During the High Middle Ages, forests and marshes were cleared and cultivated. At the same time, during the Ostsiedlung, Germans settled east of the Elbe and Saale rivers, regions largely inhabited by Polabian Slavs. Crusaders expanded to the Crusader states, parts of the Iberian Peninsula were reconquered from the Moors, and the Normans colonized southern Italy. These movements and conquests are part of larger pattern of population expansion and resettlement that occurred in Europe at this time.[1]

Source: Wikipedia

For reference Austria (1160 AD) doesn't start with Plate Armor -- Turkey does at 1300 AD. I'm unwilling to push this back anymore, though a few more starting woodlands could be fine. Dense forests, of course, don't get chopped until right at the end of the game.

I agree with embryodead; we really need more un-health to limit city size -- and a really devastating black death to cut Europe back to size. I'll work on the latter.

 

[3Miro]

I wasn't sure on which it would be nice to post this.

As you have noticed, work related duties have put me away from this mod for the time being. I promise to be back to speed after thanksgiving. That is, I will be posting, but will not be able to code until after Nov 27.

 

[The Turk]

Although yes you are right about the sanitation issue, you have to remember though that, the geography of Northern Europe really hindered them, in the sense that they had miles and miles of rich woodland that was never cut down to use for farming, while in the Middle East this farmland had been used again and again which had contributed to a surplus of food, but soon right around the rise of the Ottomans (actually I believe a bit before), all this farmland in the Middle East turned to dust due to overuse because of thousands of years of use. While in Europe during the Renaissance they had there own agricultural revolution which jump-started the economy there. For the first time huge amounts of forest were being cut down and turned into farmland which meant two things, first an increase in food surplus (more food = health) and two, a huge increase in production which meant that these upstart nations of Europe started blasting into progress. Therefore I was saying that first off, there should be a lot more "Dense Forest" which cannot be cut down and only gives one hammer or one food. This will hinder Europe nations until a certain date (which we can decide on later), then the games geography will shift (think of RFC) making some of the Middle Easts fertile plains into desert, but in Europe the disappearance of dense forest into fertile land OR just plain forest will begin a production boom. This will represent the shifting of power from the Middle East to Europe, (excluding the Ottoman Empire which was still the main power for couple hundred more years).
This is an actual theory (and a very credited one) onto why Europe overtook hundreds of years of Muslim dominance, created by a group of Historians. If you want my source I can give you one, or I'm pretty sure you can look it up on Google. Just goes to show how much of an impact geography can have on World History

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Okay, I just had to do this. Here are the European and Middle Eastern civilizations in Age of Empires II. I'd like to know how they're doing in the current build of RFCE, but I'll make my own commentary as well.

-The Celts (represented by independents?)
-The Britons (English)
-The Franks (French)
-The Spanish
-The Huns (okay this mod starts a bit too late for them, honestly dunno why they're in AoEII anyways as they fell before West Rome did)
-The Goths (represented by independents?)
-The Teutons (Germans?)
-The Vikings
-The Byzantines (their buildings actually have middle eastern graphics in the game for some reason)
-The (Sassanid?) Persians
-The Saracens (Arabs)
-The Turks

 

[jessiecat]

Okay, I just had to do this. Here are the European and Middle Eastern civilizations in Age of Empires II. I'd like to know how they're doing in the current build of RFCE, but I'll make my own commentary as well.

-The Celts (represented by independents?)
-The Britons (English)
-The Franks (French)
-The Spanish
-The Huns (okay this mod starts a bit too late for them, honestly dunno why they're in AoEII anyways as they fell before West Rome did)
-The Goths (represented by independents?)
-The Teutons (Germans?)
-The Vikings
-The Byzantines (their buildings actually have middle eastern graphics in the game for some reason)
-The (Sassanid?) Persians
-The Saracens (Arabs)
-The Turks

Have you downloaded the Alpha8 version of RFC Europe and played it? That should answer all your questions.

 

[Jusos2108]

I noticed that the unique unit for Kingdom of Sweden has been changed. I think this is very unfortunate since the Karolins are only basic infantry <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroleans> and they fought at the end of the Sweden greatness era, so basicly they weren't too succesful.

Notice the part in wikipedia: "Thus, in the latter half of the 17:th century, the major difference between the Swedish army and those common on the continent was the relative lack of firepower and the use of pikes and sabers." So they were everything but a fiered elite military unit! Notice also that Karolins mainly lost their battles.

I recommend that somebody involved in making this mod would reinstall Hakkapeliitta as the UU of Kingdom of Sweden.

The Hakkapeliittas were an elite unit that spread fear in northern Europe, for example, during the Thirty Years' War, which shaped the greatness of Sweden for that Era. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakkapeliitta> And most importantly they were formed by King Gustavus Adolphus, the man who made Sweden a superpower.

Futhermore, the Hakkapeliittas were involved in many great battles. For example: Breitenfeld in 1631, Lech in 1632, Lützen in 1632, Leipzig in 1642, Jankau in 1645, Lens in 1648 and they fought also with King Karl X Gustav when Sweden conquered Skaneland in 1658. As you can see the timeline also fits with the mod's timeline.

It is also fact that Northern Germans priests prayed even until late 19th century that lord should spare them from famine, plague and Hakkapeliittas ("A horribile Haccapaelitorum agmine libera nos, Domine", "O Lord, deliver us from the terrible army of the Haccapelites"). I rest my case!

 

[sedna17]

Hey Jusos2108:

Welcome to the forums, and thanks for your comments. Is there an add-on Swedish civilization available for download that currently uses Hakkapeliitta as the UU? We created out Sweden from scratch, so it wasn't that we discarded the Hakkapeliitta, but that it was never in.

The only problem I have is that we have a lot of UU which are cavalry, and we're trying to branch out and create a bit more diversity in this regard. Still, we can consider your request, especially if there is good art out there. If you have played our mod, can you suggest details for which unit the Hakkapeliitta should replace and what it's special bonus should be?

 

[Morholt]

May I suggest a light artillery / regimental cannon / horse artillery UU for Sweden? The artillery reforms were the defining characteristic of Gustavus' army (the massed cavalry charge would come later).

 

[jessiecat]

May I suggest a light artillery / regimental cannon / horse artillery UU for Sweden? The artillery reforms were the defining characteristic of Gustavus' army (the massed cavalry charge would come later).

The first real horse artillery was introduced by Frederick the Great in 1759 (acc. to Wiki) but didn't develop in regular use until the 1770's. Giving Sweden such a late UU makes little sense as the mod ends in 1800 and the human player at least should have already won a UHV long before that.

 

[Jusos2108]

Hey Jusos2108:

Welcome to the forums, and thanks for your comments. Is there an add-on Swedish civilization available for download that currently uses Hakkapeliitta as the UU? We created out Sweden from scratch, so it wasn't that we discarded the Hakkapeliitta, but that it was never in.

The only problem I have is that we have a lot of UU which are cavalry, and we're trying to branch out and create a bit more diversity in this regard. Still, we can consider your request, especially if there is good art out there. If you have played our mod, can you suggest details for which unit the Hakkapeliitta should replace and what it's special bonus should be?

Thank you. I read it on this page <http://rhye.civfanatics.net/wiki/index.php?title=Rhye%27s_and_Fall_of_Civilization:_Europe_civilizations> quite a while ago. I guess somebody changed it long time ago.

Anyway, I played your mod (good work) for first time today and would use pistoliero (maybe just put some yellow in the colors so it would look swedish) as base unit for Hakkapeliitta, since it is said about them that they used pistols and swords as weapons and that they shot their pistols first at close range (2 first strikes fits the picture) and then used swords.

The bonus could be plus 1 strenght, since they were quite close to heavy cavalry. It is said about them that they could battle quite evenly against Heavy Cuirassiers and that they used horses as weapon to trample infantry. Therefore, the bonus/es could be +1 strenght, starts with shock/formation/(or the 25% bonus against pike infantry)

Sources: Parker, Geoffrey edit. The Cambridge History of Warfare. New York: The Cambridge University Press, 2005. Page 159. and wikipedia

 

[frog3]

Just goes to show how much of an impact geography can have on World History

Just one variable in many

 

[sedna17]

Hmmm... turns out that we don't have a thread for Civics. Whatever. Civics were like the first thing I did for this mod. A couple of the early ones have since been tweaked, but a bunch of them have been as-is for a while.

So what do people think? Here are my observations:

1) The AI (almost) always chooses merchant republic.
2) Religious Law is probably never worthwhile.
3) The stability interactions are pretty complex, and some of this information should be available in the game. I wrote the civic stability section of the code, but found myself with a -12 civics stability with no idea why.
4) Too many civics do lots of things. It really is hard to chose a civic which does too many things all at once. Better to streamline.
5) A lot of civics do kinda the same thing. Lots of happiness from religion. Lots of bonuses to specialists. Lots of +xx% of gold. There are a bunch more options (things like building military troops with food) which could diversify the choices. See a pretty easy to read list of possible civic effects here.

 

[Jusos2108]

3) The stability interactions are pretty complex, and some of this information should be available in the game. I wrote the civic stability section of the code, but found myself with a -12 civics stability with no idea why.
[/URL]

I have noticed the same thing that the civic stability is almost always negative, only slightly though, even if running suitable pairs of them, like Feudal law, Vassalage. There might be something wrong in them.

 

[Disenfrancised]

Hmmm... turns out that we don't have a thread for Civics. Whatever. Civics were like the first thing I did for this mod. A couple of the early ones have since been tweaked, but a bunch of them have been as-is for a while.

So what do people think? Here are my observations:

1) The AI (almost) always chooses merchant republic.
2) Religious Law is probably never worthwhile.
3) The stability interactions are pretty complex, and some of this information should be available in the game. I wrote the civic stability section of the code, but found myself with a -12 civics stability with no idea why.
4) Too many civics do lots of things. It really is hard to chose a civic which does too many things all at once. Better to streamline.
5) A lot of civics do kinda the same thing. Lots of happiness from religion. Lots of bonuses to specialists. Lots of +xx% of gold. There are a bunch more options (things like building military troops with food) which could diversify the choices. See a pretty easy to read list of possible civic effects here.

Well merchant republic is a pretty good civic, especially if you ignore the stability cost function like the AI does.

Personally I'm not a fan of the current merchant republic civic, as it still gives bonuses for lots of cities – the positive effect should be linked to the capital only.

I agree that we should take a look at all the civs and try and differentiate them both in effects and aims, maybe choosing what they represent and pciking 1 clear bonus and 1-2 clear disadvantages:

Government
Despotism: Same as original RFC. Default setting.
Electorate: Espionage bonus (10%). Specialists give 1 extra science and culture. -1 stability for each city beyond capital. Low upkeep.
I did assume this was showing the elected and advised kingships of early northern Europe and the middle east, plus the circles of the HRE, and maybe the golden liberty of Poland. Its kinda hard to say what effects would represent that but I think these ones really don't except for the decreasing stability. I do think this is more a military early game civic than anything else, so perhaps the barracks happiness bonus, and +2 experience (since the intriguing and having to be a warleader to get the throne helps experience).
Divine Monarchy: +1 happiness per military unit in cities. Specialists give +2 extra culture. High upkeep.
Constitutional Monarchy: Can buy production with gold. Very stable for large civs. Medium Upkeep.
Representation: +3 science per specialist. +3 happy in 6 largest cities. Medium Upkeep. Same as original RFC
These other three are pretty much fine

Legal
Tribal law: Same as original RFC (just renamed). Default setting.
Feudal law: 5 free units. New units receive +2 Experience. 10% culture penalty. Low upkeep. Incompatible with merchant republic.
This is the ruler distributing power to his vassals, allowing more force to be called when necessary, but loosening control over outlying regions. Secondly feudal levees often found themselves outmatched by professional armies so I'm unsure about the experience. Perhaps we should enable drafting with Feudal law to show the calling up (also makes it good for surviving early game barbarians and threats) whilst increasing the culture penalty.
Bureaucracy: +50% hammers, +50% gold in capitol. High Upkeep. Same as original RFC.
Bureaucracy is pretty okay, but I think it should have a clear disadvantage too – perhaps unhappiness in all non-capital cities to show the centralisation of power? Additionally the first applications of bureaucracy was towards the army, can we have Bureaucracy give extra experience to siege units?
Religious law: 25% reduced cost for buildings with state religion. 25% penalty to research. +1 happiness in cities with state religion; -1 happiness for other religions present. High upkeep. Incompatible with electorate.
Rather overlaps with several of the religion civs. I think it should thus loose the reduced building cost flag, and instead give +1 gold and -5% upkeep to all of the state religion buildings. Thus assisting in the running of large religious empires whilst offering synergy with Organised Religion and Theocracy
Common Law: 10% bonus to research; +2 trade from town. -1 happiness for each military unit. +100% great person birth-rate. Low upkeep. Incompatible with feudalism, theocracy.
This fine, though the research bonus could easily be removed to simplify things

Labor
Tribalism: Same as original RFC. Default setting.
Serfdom: Workers complete tasks 50% faster. -50% Cottages, hamlets, and villages growth. +1 food from Farm. Low upkeep.
Its always struck me as a bit odd that serfdom, a mechanism for tying people to the land, boosts the size of your cities in the early game. I think we should drop the cottage growth reduction (which goes to guilds) in exchange for plus 2 unhappiness to keep cities small, and changing the CIV slave revolt event to a 'serf revolt' event
Free peasantry: +100% growth for cottages, hamlets, and villages. Medium upkeep. Incompatible with feudalism and theocracy.
This is good
Apprenticeship: Unlimited artists, scientists, merchants. Workshop gives +1 hammer. High upkeep.
fine as well
Free labor: +5% production and commerce. +1 hammer from town.
This kinda clashes thematicly with free-peasantry at the moment, since they're both giving bonus to towns. I think this should represent the influx of rural labour to the cities of the 16th century onwards, and thus have a bunch of city based bonuses. There are a number of ways you could represent this, but I think that modelling it as like 'power' in regular CIV is the best – giving a bunch of advantages to late game buildings (+10% commerce to textile mill, wharfs and warehouses, +10% production to forges, tanneries, builders yards and shipyards) whilst its disadvantage would be +1/2 unhealth in all cities.

Thus for cottage economies you stick with free peasantry, but shift to free labour if you have well developed cities.


Economy
Decentralization: Same as original RFC. Default setting.
Manorialism: +10% military unit production. -1 Trade route. +1 commerce from farm. Low upkeep.
Yeah this one is fine
Guilds: +10% gold bonus. 1 free specialist in each city. High upkeep.
Traditionally guilds were very anti-competitive minded and routine smashed up workshops in outlying towns – we could make this a very clear 'use this with specialist economy!' civic by adding the -50% Cottages, hamlets, and villages growth to it. Also replace the gold bonus with a 'reduced corporation cost' flag which we're currently missing out on using.
Mercantilism: +20% gold bonus. No foreign trade routes. Inflation +100%. +1 trade route per city. Medium upkeep.
This is the keeping of bullion within the country to improve local industries and resource production, so you should choose it if you have a highly productive hinterland. Perhaps +2 gold to workshops and mines as the advantage, and no foreign trade routes and +50% inflation as the disadvantage.
Merchant Republic: +50% unit build costs; each unit requires 1 extra gold in maintenance cost/turn. +25% research and gold production bonus. +100% penalty to war weariness (twice as powerful). -2 stability for each city beyond capital. Medium upkeep.
Merchant republic is meant to be for a small city state with far flung colonies, and shouldn't have bonuses beyond the capital. Thus I think it should be changed to: Advantages: +400% commerce from trade routes in the capital, no distance upkeep. Disadvantages: quadruple number of cities upkeep, each unit requires 1 extra gold upkeep, +100% war weariness.

Religion
Paganism: Same as original RFC. Default setting.
Organized Religion: + 1 happiness per city (with state religion); cities with state religion construct buildings 25% faster; High upkeep.
This is fine, though the bonus overlaps with religious law we should change that civic rather than this one
Theocracy: Gold production increased 25%, research decreased 25%. Stability bonus for small empires (+12 (1 city), +9 (2 cities), +6 (3 cities); stability penalty for large ones (-2 for each city above 3?) No spread of non-state religion. Medium upkeep.
Whilst I get what people were going for here, the small medieval religious states were often hives of intellectual activity, and the research cost is already covered by religious law. So why don't we make this civic work more tightly with our mods new mechanics – having theocracy adds +75% to your faith points score making theocracy have a religion dependent bonus! Loose/reduce the gold and research parts but keep the size based stability thing
State Religion: +2 experience points, +1 happiness in cities with state religion; Med. upkeep.
I'm not sure why this gives experience boosts, especially when compared to organised and theocracy at encouraging the men. How about we get it so acts of piety boost stability when you're running State religion, I.e. a weak version of the Orthodox faith bonus say +1 stability per 7-10 faith points. Keep the extra happy bonus as well.
Free Religion: +1 happiness per non-state religion, +10% research. Low upkeep. Same as RFC original.
This free religion makes very little sense in a pre-1800 context where nearly every state had some associated religion and state secularism was unheard of in Europe. Thus I think this one should be renamed to Tolerance, and instead give +5% commerce and +5% culture per religion in the city, let you keep a state religion, but have no happiness bonus itself.

Expansion
Subjugation: Same as in RFC – default setting.
Vassalage: +8 stability for each vassal. Distance maintenance costs increased 25%; stability penalty for expansion decreased 25%. Medium upkeep.
Occupation: +2 additional stability pts. per conquered city. Same as in RFC.
Imperialism: +2 stability points for cities founded outside the Core area. Same as Resettlement in RFC.
This is kinda weak considering the crowdedness of the map and how it comes quite late, perhaps a 50% bonus to culture production as well?
Colonialism: Allows construction of colonial projects; +1 trade route in each city. High upkeep.