Rhye's of Europe Civ Discussion Thread

[Úmarth]

I'm happy with listing them as alt. ideas on the wiki as well, giving us several choices. OK with you?

You see this is the problem. When it comes to implementing, someone (quite possibly me) is going to look at the wiki to see what they need to do and see two options which will mean they'll have to go back to the threads to see if a consensus was reached. This would negate the whole point of the wiki. I really would prefer it if non-trivial information was only added there after a consensus is reached.

 

[mushyman]

Why don't you add "proposed" and "final" sections to the wiki? That way, people can have a look at all the ideas that have been come up with easily without confusing the implementation later on. And jessiecat can go as nuts as he likes

 

[3Miro]

Umarth has a point, lets put something in the Wiki only if it is agree upon. There is nothing to say that we cannot change that in the next version/patch, I doubt we can get all the UU, UP, UHV right and balanced the first time.

On the leaderheads issue. Why don't we use 2d models for now (like in the Charlemagne mod). 2D pictures should be easier to came up with. IMHO there are higher priorities for code generation, 3d leaderheads could be added later.

 

[jessiecat]

Why don't you add "proposed" and "final" sections to the wiki? That way, people can have a look at all the ideas that have been come up with easily without confusing the implementation later on. And jessiecat can go as nuts as he likes

Which is exactly what I meant by asterixes and question marks, isn't it? But Umarth is right.
Things should be agreed before they have a permanent place on the wiki, even though getting
that agreement isn't always easy.
BTW Going nuts is a speciality of the house. No extra charge.

 

[st.lucifer]

For the record, I'm not allowed to edit stuff over at the wiki. I gave it a shot over the weekend, and was denied access - I know this has come up for some of you before, but I forget who has the power to change it? I'd appreciate being given editing power. Thanks.

 

[ijnavy]

I if you get an account on the site, you can edit the Wiki. After you get an account, you might be denied access after a couple of hours. Just login in.

 

[jessiecat]

For the record, I'm not allowed to edit stuff over at the wiki. I gave it a shot over the weekend, and was denied access - I know this has come up for some of you before, but I forget who has the power to change it? I'd appreciate being given editing power. Thanks.

Have you joined the wiki, giving username and password, as has just been said.? You'll be emailed a confirmation code no. straight away. Tell us how you get on. You, of all people should have access.

 

[st.lucifer]

i've had an account there for at least a year, so i don't think that's the issue. I'm logged in, but get the standard permission error when i try to edit anything. Anyone know who's in charge of granting modding access?

 

[Úmarth]

Talkie_Toaster

 

[jessiecat]

i've had an account there for at least a year, so i don't think that's the issue. I'm logged in, but get the standard permission error when i try to edit anything. Anyone know who's in charge of granting modding access?

Sorry. Just checked the site members list. You're not there. Just click the JOIN button on the left hand column and check. Should be easy.

 

[st.lucifer]

Blah, I'm an idiot. I have a wikidot account, but not one specific to the RFC Europe wiki. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[st.lucifer]

Ok, here's what I have as the current civ spawn dates - I'll edit the wiki to reflect this.

Spawn date: Civ:
500 AD: Byzantine Empire
Frankish Kingdom
Duchy of Burgundy (Initially proposed at 840.)

620 AD: Bulgarian Empire (Initially proposed at 630)
630 AD: Arabian Empire
700 AD: al-Andalus
720 AD: Kingdom of Spain
770 AD: Norseland (also proposed at 820)
780 AD: Papal States (unplayable)
800 AD: Republic of Venice
880 AD: Kievan Rus
900 AD: Kingdom of Hungary
940 AD: Electorate of Germany
970 AD: Kingdom of Poland
1000 AD: Grand Duchy of Moscow
1020 AD: Republic of Genoa
1060 AD: Kingdom of England
1100 AD: Kingdom of Portugal
1160 AD: Austrian Empire
1300 AD: Ottoman Empire
1500 AD: Kingdom of Sweden
1580 AD: Dutch Republic



The only major change here is moving the Norse start from 820 to 770 (820 is the date of the first Viking raids outside of Scandinavia; 770 is the rough founding date for Aarhus and Tonsberg - it seemed like a better fit.)

This does give us only three starting civs, one powerful, two nascent. What do people think of this for balance? I think that if we put the same kind of handicap on the Byzantines in terms of research and worker speed that RFC does to the Chinese and other early civs, we should be able to handle most balance issues. The fact that the Byzantines get a likely hostile neighbor in Bulgaria early should also serve to provide a counterweight and prevent expansion.

Thoughts?

 

[jessiecat]

Ok, here's what I have as the current civ spawn dates - I'll edit the wiki to reflect this.

Spawn date: Civ:
500 AD: Byzantine Empire
Frankish Kingdom
Duchy of Burgundy (Initially proposed at 840.)

620 AD: Bulgarian Empire (Initially proposed at 630)
630 AD: Arabian Empire
700 AD: al-Andalus
720 AD: Kingdom of Spain
770 AD: Norseland (also proposed at 820)
780 AD: Papal States (unplayable)
800 AD: Republic of Venice
880 AD: Kievan Rus
900 AD: Kingdom of Hungary
940 AD: Electorate of Germany
970 AD: Kingdom of Poland
1000 AD: Grand Duchy of Moscow
1020 AD: Republic of Genoa
1060 AD: Kingdom of England
1100 AD: Kingdom of Portugal
1160 AD: Austrian Empire
1300 AD: Ottoman Empire
1500 AD: Kingdom of Sweden
1580 AD: Dutch Republic



The only major change here is moving the Norse start from 820 to 770 (820 is the date of the first Viking raids outside of Scandinavia; 770 is the rough founding date for Aarhus and Tonsberg - it seemed like a better fit.)

This does give us only three starting civs, one powerful, two nascent. What do people think of this for balance? I think that if we put the same kind of handicap on the Byzantines in terms of research and worker speed that RFC does to the Chinese and other early civs, we should be able to handle most balance issues. The fact that the Byzantines get a likely hostile neighbor in Bulgaria early should also serve to provide a counterweight and prevent expansion.

Thoughts?

I agree with the earlier Norse start. In fact the earliest recorded Viking raids were in Dorset
in 789 and Lindesfarne in 793 so the earlier date is justified. The rest are fine by me although
I'm worried about the Germans spawning so late compared to the Franks and Burgundy.
Do we encourage Burgundy to expand south rather than north or do it's northern cities
(if any) flip to the Germans like Mainz does in RFC?

 

[st.lucifer]

I agree with the earlier Norse start. In fact the earliest recorded Viking raids were in Dorset
in 789 and Lindesfarne in 793 so the earlier date is justified. The rest are fine by me although
I'm worried about the Germans spawning so late compared to the Franks and Burgundy.
Do we encourage Burgundy to expand south rather than north or do it's northern cities
(if any) flip to the Germans like Mainz does in RFC?

That's actually the one gameplay balance issue I'm most worried about, but I'm not sure that putting the Germans in earlier solves more problems than it creates. Either way, Burgundy's going to get squeezed - but I propose making the German flip zone pretty small (and giving them more/stronger units initially to make up for it.) Keep in mind that Burgundy's probably not likely to have more than 3-4 cities when Germany spawns - less if they've been at war with France the whole time - and if we give them strong preferences for spreading N-S rather than E-W, they're unlikely to lose any cities. On the other hand, coding preferences that way may make them too passive in regard to their neighbors...either way we're going to have problems. If we threw history out the window and started Germany further East, we wouldn't have this problem - but I don't like doing that either.

Other thoughts or suggestions?
(aside from Prussia, which shows up too late to be included.)

 

[onedreamer]

I think Burgundy and the Franks should not go to war for a while. Looking at the start dates central-eastern europe will be empty for a while, which might lead to unwanted expansions there from Bulgarians and Franks/Burgundians. So I assume we will have many barbarian groups ravaging those lands (it's still the Age of Migration after all), to discourage settling and those groups should also keep Franks and Burgundians busy enough that they won't expand too much and probably not go to war.

 

[Disenfrancised]

I think Burgundy and the Franks should not go to war for a while. Looking at the start dates central-eastern europe will be empty for a while, which might lead to unwanted expansions there from Bulgarians and Franks/Burgundians. So I assume we will have many barbarian groups ravaging those lands (it's still the Age of Migration after all), to discourage settling and those groups should also keep Franks and Burgundians busy enough that they won't expand too much and probably not go to war.

Well there should be a shell of Eastern German/Slavic independents that should curtail overexpansion.

Also wouldn't a late spawning Papal States rather reduce the chances of them getting the AP?

 

[onedreamer]

I don't like indipendents in case it wasn't clear already
They are unrealistic in this scenario and easy to exploit. I think you guys are putting too much stress on indipendents. Think about how many indipendents spawn throughout RFC in the 3000BC start (which is the default game).

 

[st.lucifer]

Well there should be a shell of Eastern German/Slavic independents that should curtail overexpansion.

Also wouldn't a late spawning Papal States rather reduce the chances of them getting the AP?

Not if we place it in Rome through the WB from the beginning. I think that's the way to do it - objections?

 

[st.lucifer]

I don't like indipendents in case it wasn't clear already
They are unrealistic in this scenario and easy to exploit. I think you guys are putting too much stress on indipendents. Think about how many indipendents spawn throughout RFC in the 3000BC start (which is the default game).

We do run some risks by relying on independents, but I think we can mitigate those somewhat by having them spawn with strong defensive units and walled cities. We'll have to work to keep them technologically backward and away from wonder production, but that shouldn't be too difficult.

 

[onedreamer]

Yeah but that's not my objection. What's the point of all this hard work ? Having indipendents in Eastern Europe between 500 to 800 isn't much realistic. This is still the Age of Migration and barbarian people kept warring, conquering and losing land there. Groups of barbarians spawning there are more representative than lonely cities sitting there doing absolutely nothing but improve land and city for later easy conquests by the central-eastern civs. I think these civs should start with more settlers than western, but not have ready settlements to take over. Iberia an Italy are more realistic regions for indipendents (and strong ones too), but I still wouldn't have more than 4 indipendent cities for each peninsula.