I wonder is it possible to have city names defined by tile AND date? It would be cool to have English cities named in the Saxon fashion before the national catastrophe... and it would work for other civs whose cities went through periodic resiting and renaming, frx in Scandinavia.
Rhye's of Europe Civ Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Squirrelloid
- Start date
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
What do mean by "tile AND date"?
And just what do you regard as the "national catastrophe"?
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
A) Kiev changing to the Golden Horde doesn't really make sense, considering the Khanates power base was further east, and they invaded and destroyed kiev rather than taking it over. Chernigov, or even Ukraine makes more sense.
B) 'Greater Russia' actually already has a meaning - what we currently think of as 'Russia' (ukraine being Little Russia and Belarus being White Russia), 'Empire of all Russias' makes a lot more sense for territory based names (and was one of the actual titles).
I'd still prefer Aragon or northern italian civ over Bulgaria though.
We should probably concurrently decide on the spawning of independent cities and barbarian waves with when the main civs spawn so that it fits together more.
B) 'Greater Russia' actually already has a meaning - what we currently think of as 'Russia' (ukraine being Little Russia and Belarus being White Russia), 'Empire of all Russias' makes a lot more sense for territory based names (and was one of the actual titles).
I'd still prefer Aragon or northern italian civ over Bulgaria though
.We should probably concurrently decide on the spawning of independent cities and barbarian waves with when the main civs spawn so that it fits together more.
Spoiler Independents? :
Spoiler Invasions and Uprisings? :
onedreamer
Dragon
So Andalus and Asturias both starting in 720. Nice and simple and accurate.
That'd prob. work OK. Do you agree?
My concern is that the Arab state must be strong. Otherwise we will have a standard RFC situation with Arabia. With the current setup, it's highly unlikely that the AI will expand from Arabia to Morocco. Arabia will be a nuisance for Byzantium only, Al Andalus for Spain only. IMHO it would be better to find a solution to have either a unique and strong Arabian state, or to have an arabian state starting in north-northwest Africa.
onedreamer
Dragon
Indipendents:
Disenfrancised, it is a good list but maybe you're creating a bit too many "ready cities" especially in western europe ? I would place indipendents in Switzerland, Scandinavia, Scotland and Ireland, Crimea (Bulgar Tribes in case Bulgaria starts in 800 AD instead of 600 as I hope), North and South Italy for Longobards (Milan and Benevento ?), Moravia, Turkey, Egypt (with weak defenses to encourage Arabian expansion there) and in the Middle East at least Jerusalem (which should probably flip to Arabs). Maybe Tripoli too. I don't understand the reason to have indipendent cities in France and Iberia since there are Civs there spawning quite early.
Disenfrancised, it is a good list but maybe you're creating a bit too many "ready cities" especially in western europe ? I would place indipendents in Switzerland, Scandinavia, Scotland and Ireland, Crimea (Bulgar Tribes in case Bulgaria starts in 800 AD instead of 600 as I hope), North and South Italy for Longobards (Milan and Benevento ?), Moravia, Turkey, Egypt (with weak defenses to encourage Arabian expansion there) and in the Middle East at least Jerusalem (which should probably flip to Arabs). Maybe Tripoli too. I don't understand the reason to have indipendent cities in France and Iberia since there are Civs there spawning quite early.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
I think there is a solution to that problem. Take the example of the CIV4
Middle Ages scenario that starts in 843. All you would have to do is to start
the Arabs as The Umayyad Caliphate in 700 and have it break up into three
parts in 750. Or start them all off together in 750. So you end up with;
the Abbasids - Baghdad, Mecca and Damascus
the Fatimids - Tunis and Cairo
the Umayyads -Cordoba and Tangier
the Christian Spanish -Asturias/Leon
plus a couple of Berber independents in Morocco
Historically, the Fatimids and the Cordovans
fought over Morocco anyway. The three Arabian Caliphates
would then all be fairly strong in their own right.
onedreamer
Dragon
sounds good actually, but we also need
-1 something to prevent other civs from settling those areas for 250 years
-2 one more civ slot
-1 something to prevent other civs from settling those areas for 250 years
-2 one more civ slot
What do mean by "tile AND date"?
And just what do you regard as the "national catastrophe"?
I mean have it so Lundenwic (500) -> Lunden (c.900) -> London (c.1100) etc.
I was being hyperbolic about 1066.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
Thought so. Round here folks would put the catastrophe a bit earler.
Like the Saxons or English (whatever they're called) Still going on too,
some might say.
I think we can do that later if its not to difficult to realize. First we shall put the focus on the civs, their spawn und their UP, UU, UB and UHV.
The question is in how far the civs can settle new cities, because historically most of the cities on which the western states build their empire on were cities which were founded much earlier by the romans or some tribes. They just flipped to them. So either you have many independents at the beginning or the whole landmass is empty (which isnt that historically correct i guess) until the settlers of the civs which spawn capture the land. On the other hand if you are deploying many cities the games are less variable and more and more the same because the AI allways owns cities on the same spots.
So its a matter of the focus, either gameplay or historic correctness. Both will be very hard.
Edit: Whats ETA?
The question is in how far the civs can settle new cities, because historically most of the cities on which the western states build their empire on were cities which were founded much earlier by the romans or some tribes. They just flipped to them. So either you have many independents at the beginning or the whole landmass is empty (which isnt that historically correct i guess) until the settlers of the civs which spawn capture the land. On the other hand if you are deploying many cities the games are less variable and more and more the same because the AI allways owns cities on the same spots.
So its a matter of the focus, either gameplay or historic correctness. Both will be very hard.
Edit: Whats ETA?
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
France won't start out with all of modern france under its control, Neustria and the medevil French state should only have a smallish region around paris - the south and west should have several independents that need to be brought under control like in real life (indeed I'd see uniting france before X to be one of the historical goals).
Likewise in Iberia, the christian civs will start off with tiny areas, the independents showing the other christian kingdoms to be conquered (Pamplona for Navarre and Zaragossa for Aragon).
Eh? if anything a settler based model would be more predictable (the AIs tending to choose the same good spots), whilst the random dynamics of city capture might produce some interesting results. Plus this would better represent the constant warfare medeveal states had to engage in.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
sounds good actually, but we also need
-1 something to prevent other civs from settling those areas for 250 years
-2 one more civ slot
Well, Iberia and Morocco were loosely ruled by the Visigoths for most of that time, so it could be an independent civ. The first 250 years is not so long.
Same thing happened in RFC, didn't it?
st.lucifer
King
A) Kiev changing to the Golden Horde doesn't really make sense, considering the Khanates power base was further east, and they invaded and destroyed kiev rather than taking it over. Chernigov, or even Ukraine makes more sense.
B) 'Greater Russia' actually already has a meaning - what we currently think of as 'Russia' (ukraine being Little Russia and Belarus being White Russia), 'Empire of all Russias' makes a lot more sense for territory based names (and was one of the actual titles).
I'd still prefer Aragon or northern italian civ over Bulgaria though
Sounds fine to me. Empire of all Russias and Ukraine it is. I'm open to the possibility of removing Bulgaria, but I'd rather not add Aragon or anything in northern Italy - those areas are going to be really crowded as is, and the historical roles of the civs in question can largely be filled by others. I did like the UHV goals for your proposed Italian civ, but I think that having Bulgaria in for gameplay balance is probably better.
Thoughts here: good list. I think I originally put Toulon, Narbonne, and Burdigala on the map, but I'm ok with dropping them for these. Leipzig seems to be the oldest city in Saxony (at around 1000 AD). I don't think the map goes as far east as Kazan or Astrakhan - in moving the map west to eliminate Mesopotamia, I had to take out the Caucasus and Caspian regions.
Man, I'm not going to want to play this as Kiev....
Sure thats right, but if the cities are going to flip to the spawning civ then this civ will start normally every time with the same cities in the same situation (except someone raised the cities before).
st.lucifer
King
I had planned to give Al-Andalus cities or settlers in both Morocco and Iberia, so no conflict there. I'm not sure how to best handle the maintenance issues; it may be worthwhile to have a UP or UB centered on this. It might be interesting to put the bulk of the army in Iberia, while putting most of the cities in Morocco... there'd have to be a balancing act to keep the African cities from being overrun by Berbers. I am convinced that there need to be two Muslim civs rather than one - one concentrated in the Maghreb, the other in the eastern end of the Mediterranean.
You're right about the imbalance in the early start. Germany probably should start later, as should Burgundy - I'd think that England should start early, but I'd be fine with moving them to 700 or so. Papal States in 750 is also fine.
The Kiev situation is historically complicated, and was further complicated by my initial ideas for how to handle the civ in the mod - my original thought was to have the first UHV or two based on commerce and city development, and then to have them take a hard right turn into conquest and pillage to represent the arrival and takeover of the Mongols, who controlled the area (after razing the city in about 1200) for hundreds of years after the initial conquest. Now, we've got the Magyars for that sort of thing, and if we're going to have the Mongols and others show up as barbarian invasions, there's no need for it.
No objections to moving the Bulgarian start date to 800. The idea was to prevent Byzantine expansion, but the Bulgars didn't get big until later.
st.lucifer
King
As I've just posted to St. Lucifer, I agree. The Christians should start with Asturias not Leon in 720. Better then to have Al Andalus start at the same time for balance but with 80% of the land area (historically accurate).
As far as starting in Morocco, that would put the date back 50-100 years,
esp. for the start of the Umayyads in the Middle East (660?)
Better to start Al Andalus in place in 720.
Morocco would be ruled by the Umayyads up to 750,
then by Cordoba until the invasion by the Almoravids in 1086.
So Andalus and Asturias both starting in 720. Nice and simple and accurate.
That'd prob. work OK. Do you agree?
I simplified it to Leon because I felt that Asturias was confusing (and it would give proto-Spain three name changes). If you'd rather do it Asturias -> Castile -> Spain, that's another possibility.
I think that both proto-Spain and al-Andalus will start out with fairly large armies in Iberia and few settlers - with independent cities to conquer before they start fighting each other. Al-Andalus may start out with settlers in north Africa; either way, they'll have sort of a joint power base.
The map is available in the map thread, by the way. It's not completely done (resources, city-unfriendliness tweaks), but it's pretty close. Last I checked, the RFC map thread was still on the most recent page of the forum, if you're looking for it.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
Any comments on my post (106) regarding 750 as start date for 3 Arab
states splitting from the Umayyads. Solves the Morocco problem as well?
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
But all these independents will be outside the small spawn areas of the civs - Neustria should only have a spawn zone around paris, England only the south etc.
Similar threads
