Rhye's of Europe Civ Discussion Thread

[3Miro]

Biggest population/unhealthness and population/unhappiness ratios? (codable?)

Codable yes, but it is not practical. Just don't build Forge/Guild Houses population/unhealthness would be maximized at 1. There are more sources of unhappiness, but in any way it doesn't mean "build more temples", but rather "do now allow foreign religion/culture/war wariness.

 

[Michael Vick]

Sorry for the long absence again, I also agree that both Islamic civs should be stronger, I don't know who it is that ISN'T pushing for stronger Arabia and Cordoba. I think a good solution for Cordoba is another powerhouse city so that Cordoba won't stand alone. This idea might have been shot down before, but maybe Seville could be that other strong city. It was probably the next most important city in Al-Andalus after Cordoba, right? What if we could have it from the spawn as Hispala, a relatively strong city (We'd improve it's resource situation justa tad) , and then make it flip to Cordoba.

For Arabia I have a completely different idea. I've said this before but it wasn't discussed much. What if we extend the map East a little so that Arabia can have some more cities to generate troops with? This is probably too far East to stretch it, but a city like Baghdad would be a big help, no? With this extension obviously there will be more of Russia too, leaving them with more room to expand and more locations for their historic cites, like Kazan or Caricyn (Volgograd). The Arabic start would be changed somewhat, but not that much, considering that there isn't much else between Damascus and Baghdad. In fact there isn't much at all in that area of latitude except for Baghdad and a few cities in Russia, so it wouldn't slow the game much.

Both Islamic civs should probably get another settler or two also, and Arabia should get a bigger army.

 

[jessiecat]

I think increasing their tech rate in the early game and flipping a 2nd. city in North Africa ( Tlemcen or Oran?) would help a lot esp. if Arabia is always Islamic. Tweaking their stability, esp. in the foriegn relations would help too.
I don't think resources in Andalusia need to alter very much now that Valencia's position is greatly improved. Though more stone and an extra iron would be useful. And the plains SE of Toledo have no resources at all. One or two grains and stone would be useful. Cuenca (1 tile S of the pigs) could be a very good city if it had more food to grow. Morocco is not bad though the coast to the east (Oran area) before Algiers needs some food for growth. That's about it I think.

What do you think of these sugggestion then, MV? Valencia could be the 2nd. powerhouse city.
And do you agree that Spain has become very strong and too easy to play as well? Go on, admit it?

 

[Michael Vick]

Is Seville not the second most important city in all of Spain? Has it not been in most of Spain's history?? Then where is iton our map??? This is why I'm reluctant to go with Valencia.

and not because of Spain's own strength and amazingness however, but because of Cordoba's current patheticness. We will now act accordingly.

 

[micbic]

Well, thats why the Cordobans now flip Toledo (dont believe? look sourceforge!)

 

[jessiecat]

Well, thats why the Cordobans now flip Toledo (dont believe? look sourceforge!)

They don't flip Toledo. Anyway, what's sourceforge?

 

[st.lucifer]

Sorry for the long absence again, I also agree that both Islamic civs should be stronger, I don't know who it is that ISN'T pushing for stronger Arabia and Cordoba. I think a good solution for Cordoba is another powerhouse city so that Cordoba won't stand alone. This idea might have been shot down before, but maybe Seville could be that other strong city. It was probably the next most important city in Al-Andalus after Cordoba, right? What if we could have it from the spawn as Hispala, a relatively strong city (We'd improve it's resource situation justa tad) , and then make it flip to Cordoba.

For Arabia I have a completely different idea. I've said this before but it wasn't discussed much. What if we extend the map East a little so that Arabia can have some more cities to generate troops with? This is probably too far East to stretch it, but a city like Baghdad would be a big help, no? With this extension obviously there will be more of Russia too, leaving them with more room to expand and more locations for their historic cites, like Kazan or Caricyn (Volgograd). The Arabic start would be changed somewhat, but not that much, considering that there isn't much else between Damascus and Baghdad. In fact there isn't much at all in that area of latitude except for Baghdad and a few cities in Russia, so it wouldn't slow the game much.

Both Islamic civs should probably get another settler or two also, and Arabia should get a bigger army.

Originally, the map stretched further east, including the Caucasus and parts of Mesopotamia. We made the decision at the beginning of the project to focus on Europe and therefore eliminate those regions - in order to do so, I transposed the whole thing, one square at a time, ten rows west. It was an incredibly tedious job, which took maybe 12-15 hours of dedicated time to do.

I am not doing that again. Even if I were willing, someone would have to go back through and redo every single scripted even that involves a set of coordinates, and redo every single settler map and city name map.

If I remember right (we looked into this approach at the time), there's no way to simply add blank columns to the end of an existing map - so you're stuck with this one, unless you'd like to redo the whole thing from scratch. Sorry.


I'm not in favor of strengthening Arabia. In the hands of the human player, they're unstoppable - more than one of us has won a game as Arabia where we've nearly completed the tech tree and built every single wonder and colony before the last UHV trigger. Going with a domination victory isn't much more difficult.

In the hands of the AI, it's a slightly different story, but if we can solve the Orthodoxy issue, they'll be in better shape.


I am in favor of strengthening Cordoba, and tweaking the terrain around Sevilla to make a second powerful city possible seems to me like a simple and logical way of doing that. I'm also fine with Jessiecat's suggestion of strengthening Valencia - one problem of the good Cordoban city sites is that most of the historically important ones were not-quite-coastal. Having a strong port city is essential, and Tangier as it currently stands (although I'm going to improve it significantly) doesn't cut it.

I'd rather add a second city in Morocco (I'd vote for Tlemcen over Oran) than have them flip Toledo.

 

[jessiecat]

I agree with you, st. lucifer. And I also agree that Sevilla should be built. But the only way I'd opt for Sevilla over Cadiz was if we gave it access to the sea. It was the major port until the Gaudalquivir silted up in the 15thC. That's why Cadiz was built. So maybe an estuary tile there might do the job. Could you try that and then everybody's satisfied?
Something like this though you can do it better, I'm sure.

 

[st.lucifer]

I agree with you, st. lucifer. And I also agree that Sevilla should be built. But the only way I'd opt for Sevilla over Cadiz was if we gave it access to the sea. It was the major port until the Gaudalquivir silted up in the 15thC. That's why Cadiz was built. So maybe an estuary tile there might do the job. Could you try that and then everybody's satisfied?
Something like this though you can do it better, I'm sure.

Could we change the settler map so that either location is Sevilla rather than Cadiz? I can shift things over, but it's not going to look pretty, and there's still not a whole lot of space between Sevilla and Cordoba. I might be able to add another tile to the west and keep it in proportion - let me play around with it and see what i can do.

Another possibility is starting Cordoba one tile further east, which is a considerably better city site than the current one. Go with that, make Sevilla the coastal tile, and change some resources to make both better city sites, and we've got a considerably better starting position.

 

[Verily]

I'm sorry but I don't really like Verily's idea, its too unhistorical, due to the fact that the Arabs never finished the tech tree first nor did they control any part of Anatolia your getting confused with the Seljuk Turks.

UHVs are not about what a civilization did, but rather about what a civilization tried to do (and in some cases, but not all, succeeded--think of the German UHVs in base RFC, only one third of one of which [control Scandinavia by 1940] is historical).

The Arabs did indeed attack Constantinople many times, even breaching the walls before being turned back. It would not have taken much of a twist of history for Constantinople to fall to the Arabs in the 700s. The UHV is highly appropriate.

"Finish the tech tree" was to represent continued Arab technological dominance. Obviously they didn't manage this, but again it would be a goal of the Arabs to maintain their technological superiority well past when they actually did. I'm less wedded to this idea.

Also, st. lucifer, Cordoba was originally one tile east. It was moved because some people whined that there wasn't enough room for Granada. (There still really isn't, and there never will be, but some people are never satisfied.) I would support moving it back.

Perhaps for happiest/healthiest there could also be a population requirement (i.e., have 10 million people* and be the happiest and healthiest civilization in 1500).

*Arbitrary number, would have to look into what is realistic by the demographics screen.

 

[Michael Vick]

I'd like to keep city positions the same in Iberia. Unless somebody invents a way to have caravels and such sail up rivers in the mod, then Seville should stay on that hill next to the copper. Also moving Seville would completely eliminate the need for Cadiz, which I intend to continue to build. This probably doesn't need to be mentioned, but that screenshot of coast under the Guadalquivir was quite unattractive, don't you all agree? IMO Cordoba doesn't need a particularly powerful coastal city, they weren't really all that spectacular naval-ly, were they?? If we do need a big coastal city then give the region enough resources to have a big Sevilla AND Cadiz.

Of course the ideal solution is a way to allow smaller ships (galley types, caravels, carracks) the ability to traverse the river tile and get to Seville, while galleons, frigates and the like will have to come from Cadiz, as historical. That's impossible, right?

We'd need a new kind of tile, like a "large river" kind of thing, it would be able to go into oceans, as well as merge with normal rivers, it should give cities water access, but a different kind, allowing for different water buildings (it wouldn't make much sense to build a lighthouse in Seville). It could be crossed by small ships, and land units but ONLY with a road going across. Also the art for it would require that the actual stream of water go through the middle of the tile, and not the border so that the ships would actually look like they were sailing through. This kind of tile would be used for the first part of the Guadalquivir, the Thames, the Nile, and more. Also impossible, of course, but you know, just in case some really amazing modders/artists were listening...

 

[The Turk]

Talking about Cordoba, you guys should really think of making it bigger and more powerful, by maybe just adding more resources around it and giving it room, because for a large chunk of time Cordoba was the biggest and influential city in the Middle East and in Europe.

 

[st.lucifer]

I'd like to keep city positions the same in Iberia. Unless somebody invents a way to have caravels and such sail up rivers in the mod, then Seville should stay on that hill next to the copper. Also moving Seville would completely eliminate the need for Cadiz, which I intend to continue to build. This probably doesn't need to be mentioned, but that screenshot of coast under the Guadalquivir was quite unattractive, don't you all agree? IMO Cordoba doesn't need a particularly powerful coastal city, they weren't really all that spectacular naval-ly, were they?? If we do need a big coastal city then give the region enough resources to have a big Sevilla AND Cadiz.

Of course the ideal solution is a way to allow smaller ships (galley types, caravels, carracks) the ability to traverse the river tile and get to Seville, while galleons, frigates and the like will have to come from Cadiz, as historical. That's impossible, right?

We'd need a new kind of tile, like a "large river" kind of thing, it would be able to go into oceans, as well as merge with normal rivers, it should give cities water access, but a different kind, allowing for different water buildings (it wouldn't make much sense to build a lighthouse in Seville). It could be crossed by small ships, and land units but ONLY with a road going across. Also the art for it would require that the actual stream of water go through the middle of the tile, and not the border so that the ships would actually look like they were sailing through. This kind of tile would be used for the first part of the Guadalquivir, the Thames, the Nile, and more. Also impossible, of course, but you know, just in case some really amazing modders/artists were listening...

As a veteran mapmaker from Civ II onward, I have often dreamed of such a tile... but I don't think it's going to happen. A damn shame, as it would be more accurate than anything we can throw out there right now, and it would probably look better, as well... It's too bad the river graphics are so tough to work with, as syncing such a tile up with a river would present its own challenge.


There actually are lighthouses on some large rivers - the Hudson comes to mind. And we added the wharf as a way to incorporate river commerce into the grand scheme of water-based trade... so we're at least moving in the right direction.

I still think that given the limitations we're working with, eliminating the newer Cadiz in favor of the more historical Sevilla is the way to go. Cordoba may not have to be a naval power, but they controlled the Barbary Coast and Straits of Gibraltar - they weren't exactly landlocked. Maybe Valencia is all the port that they need, but Sevilla is probably the single most important city of this time period that will rarely/never be built by either the human player or AI (other candidates: Orleans, Verona, Pisa, Sogut, Berlin, Acre, Madrid).


I'm with Verily - move Cordoba back 1E, and make room for a better, coastal Sevilla.

 

[merijn_v1]

They don't flip Toledo. Anyway, what's sourceforge?

Look at the Files threat. Page 24 in the middle somewere.

 

[jessiecat]

I still think that given the limitations we're working with, eliminating the newer Cadiz in favor of the more historical Sevilla is the way to go. Cordoba may not have to be a naval power, but they controlled the Barbary Coast and Straits of Gibraltar - they weren't exactly landlocked. Maybe Valencia is all the port that they need, but Sevilla is probably the single most important city of this time period that will rarely/never be built by either the human player or AI (other candidates: Orleans, Verona, Pisa, Sogut, Berlin, Acre, Madrid).

I'm with Verily - move Cordoba back 1E, and make room for a better, coastal Sevilla.

I think there's a general consensus on that solution. (Apart from Michael who is welcome to build wherever he feels like when he's playing as Spain.). All we have to do is move the Cordoba start 1 tile East and change one tile on the CityName map to make Seville appear on the coast. As I've done on the screenshot below. A much more balanced start with lots of room for Malaga and Alicante (or Cartagena) on the south coast. I like it.

 

[micbic]

Sourceforge: That hosting site we were talking about. In the latest version posted, Cordoba is much stronger and it flips Toledo.
I am okay, also, with making Sevilla appear on coast, though it might have been better if added as an indy at non-coast.

 

[jessiecat]

Sourceforge: That hosting site we were talking about. In the latest version posted, Cordoba is much stronger and it flips Toledo.
I am okay, also, with making Sevilla appear on coast, though it might have been better if added as an indy at non-coast.

I haven't loaded sourceforge yet. Is there a newer version than Alpha 7 posted there?

 

[micbic]

Basically, there is no new version, but 'subversions': You make your revision at the files you want, and upload them there, and thus the older Alpha is being constantly updated (another nice thing with it is that when you download the newer subversion, you dont get 140 MB of files, SVN just replaces the revised files).

In case you have the SVN Tortoise, it is enough to download and update it.

Another scenario with Sevilla is giving it a high value in the AI Settler map. I dont believe, though, that we should be deterministic and say that 'Sevilla MUST be built in every game'.

 

[Wessel V1]

I am okay, also, with making Sevilla appear on coast, though it might have been better if added as an indy at non-coast.

I'd rather have it on the coast, because I absolutely hate independent cities placed on suboptimal locations, since I don't like razing and rebuilding cities.

EDIT: I also agree about giving some tiles a higher settler value. Being the perfectionist I am in these things, I don't like it when I discover that the civ I'd like to conquer has built it's cities in the worst locations possible. I even reload a Japanese start frequently, only because China places it's cities so terrible sometimes. Therefore, I would like to have higher values for "good" city tiles and lower values for "bad" city tiles. It would improve the AI anyway.

 

[jessiecat]

Basically, there is no new version, but 'subversions': You make your revision at the files you want, and upload them there, and thus the older Alpha is being constantly updated (another nice thing with it is that when you download the newer subversion, you dont get 140 MB of files, SVN just replaces the revised files).

In case you have the SVN Tortoise, it is enough to download and update it.

Another scenario with Sevilla is giving it a high value in the AI Settler map. I dont believe, though, that we should be deterministic and say that 'Sevilla MUST be built in every game'.

I see. I think I'll just post files here and wait for the official version, if that's OK. I'm just an old Luddite and the only "subversions" I get involved with are political.