Rhye's of Europe Civ Discussion Thread

[Úmarth]

I would encourage everybody to add any agreed upon information to the wiki.

 

[jessiecat]

I would encourage everybody to add any agreed upon information to the wiki.

Can we put an asterix or something on agreed stuff and ?? on ideas submitted
to the civ list but not yet agreed? If so, I'll mark them appropriately.

 

[jessiecat]

A few notes on Bulgarian history. Bulgarian tribes were united around 630, but were in the territory of modern Ukraine and Georgia. Khan Kubrat but all the tribes under his rile. After Kubrat's death, his son Asparih led part of the tribes to Danube River and then south (680AD). Another one of Kubrat's sons led his people north close to Ural Mountains and found Volga Bulgaria there. That existed until the Mongols conquered it and was dominantly Muslim.

Danube Bulgaria (the one modeled above) was indeed Orthodox Christian (since mid 9th century). Ancient Bulgaria' main contribution was countering the Greek cultural influence in the region, which is consistent with goals 3. The peak of the Bulgarian expansion could be considered either during the reign of Simeon I (territory wise) or Ivan Assen II, who effectively rules the entire peninsula. Only Thessaloníki and Constantinople were not directly under Bulgarian rule, but Ivan Assen II had direct political influence to both via political marriages. UHV 2 could easily include Constantinople (historically, I don't know about balance).

The big downfall of Bulgaria was that it fell before the Ottomans (actually during the Ottoman invasion Bulgaria was divided into at least 3 or 4 parts). Make the other UHV similar to China as well, never loose a city to the Ottomans until 1600AD or something.

UHP is totally unrealistic. Bulgarians were building cities in what was vastly rural area at the time. I have never heard of a Balkan city being razed by Bulgarians. Make the UHP something that would help counter the Byzantine cultural influence (i.e. +50% culture in all cities), that would be more realistic.

What power does the Konnik have?

Thanks for the info. I bow to your superior knowledge. The outline I made for the Bulgarians
was only tentative so easily changed. Interesting point about the Bulgarians falling
before Constantinople, so in our game the Ottomans would have a big impact on the stabilty
of both the Byzantines and the Bulgarians too. I agee totally about the UP. Razing cities didn't
seem viable to me either but I was unsure what their UP should be. Your alternative makes a lot
more sense, so def. a rethink there. As for the Konnik, what do you mean by power,
other than a strength of 6 and movement of 2, much like the Mongol Keshik? Is there a better
UU, in your view?

 

[Úmarth]

Can we put an asterix or something on agreed stuff and ?? on ideas submitted
to the civ list but not yet agreed? If so, I'll mark them appropriately.

I think it's best if we just stick to putting concrete or nearly concrete information down there. The point of having it was so we don't have to dig through the threads to find out what's already been decided, if we move the conversation to the wiki we'll just have the same problem.

 

[3Miro]

Thanks for the info. I bow to your superior knowledge. The outline I made for the Bulgarians
was only tentative so easily changed. Interesting point about the Bulgarians falling
before Constantinople, so in our game the Ottomans would have a big impact on the stabilty
of both the Byzantines and the Bulgarians too. I agee totally about the UP. Razing cities didn't
seem viable to me either but I was unsure what their UP should be. Your alternative makes a lot
more sense, so def. a rethink there. As for the Konnik, what do you mean by power,
other than a strength of 6 and movement of 2, much like the Mongol Keshik? Is there a better
UU, in your view?

I personally care more about game play than graphics. Historically Bulgarians fought and won many wars against Byzantines, other Eastern Europeans and even Charlemagne (last one was series of small and relatively insignificant battles). The Konnica (plural for Konnik) was the key element in all the wars. Depending on the tech level of the other European nations, Horse Archers could be too weak. Rhye changed the Mongolian Keshik in RFC for that same reason. So we need to think about the balance.

If Byzantines stat with units like Praetorians or something similar, it might be reasonable to give the Konnik +50% vs Mele units or simply strength of 8 (remove the no terrain penalty). Other alternative would be to make it a regular Knight, but perhaps a bit cheaper. Both choices would be historically acceptable, the deciding factor here would have to be how they balance with the rest of the game. Even the Keshik as is in Civ IV could be OK as long as it is powerful enough game-play wise.

 

[st.lucifer]

Looking back, we inititally had the Magyars as the updated version of the Mongols, which seems more appropriate. Let's rethink the Bulgarians as being more like the traditional Slavic barbarian invaders, rather than a Mongol or Hun analogue - more sedentary, focused on conquering and settling rather than pillaging. (and yes, I know that the Bulgars weren't Slavs or Goths - but my sense is that they resembled them more in behavior than they did Huns or Mongols.)

For the UU, the first thing that comes to mind when thinking about Bulgaria militarily is those giant maces. I don't know if this makes for a realistic unit, particularly since the actual maceman unit (assuming we keep it) will be late in the game - but to give them sort of an upgraded axeman early might work (and would fit better with a settler/conqueror role.) 3Miro, is this consistent with your konnick? I didn't find much information when looking it up.

 

[3Miro]

Bulgarians had visited (and raided) Europe as early as 4th and 5th century. Bulgarians were allies to Atilla the Hun. Initially they were pillagers, however, Khan Kubrat completely changed that. Kubrat was actually educated in Constantinople along with the heir to the Byzantine Empire, so he was nothing like a raging barbarian. After he united the Bulgarian tribes he left the legacy of "settle not pillage", and that is exactly what his sons did. All of his sons tried to settle in different parts of Europe, however, only two were successful, at Danube and at Volga. The first one is being modeled here definitely as settler and not pillager.

Bulgars were not Slavs, however, Bulgars merged with the Slavs that in the 7th century were already dominating the region between Danube and the Balkan Mountain. Bulgar is a made up word to distinguish between Bulgarians before and after the merge (just like Byzantines never called themselves Byzantines). Asparuh (Kubrat's son) made an alliance with the Slavs against the common enemy (the Byzantines), that eventually grew into a country. Sources are kind of vague on the exact dynamics there, but Slavs did fight alongside Bulgars in 680, played role in the political life in the early 9th century and all differences were abolished with the adoption of Christianity in the mid 9th century.

Under the above, UP: "No residence in conquered cities" is also consistent.

The cultural UHV are also consistent with settlers.

As to the UU:
Bulgarians were famous for their skills in horseback riding. The early symbol of Bulgaria is a horse tail tied to a spear. Asparuh's horseman were the core of his army when he fought the Byzantines in 680.

The clash between Bulgarian konnica (horsemen) and Arabian cavalry was the deciding factor in lifting the siege of Constantinople in 712. Arabic historians describe Bulgarian horseman as wearing armor head to toes and even the horses had armor.

Khan Kurum conquered the Avars in the early 9th century again with the konnica. When the borders of Bulgarian and Charlemagne's Empires met, Khan Krum send several of his elite konnilk on guerrilla raids. Charlemagne's army was unable to cope with them and the border was drawn on Bulgarian terms.

Tzar Simeon I's strategy with his konnica decided the battle at Aheloy in 917. That was one of the largest battles in Medieval Europe's history, ensuring Bulgarian domination over the Balkans for the next half century.

Over time, the konnica faded and in the second Bulgarian kingdom it was effectively non existent. Tzar Kaloyan defeated the crusaders in 1205 at Edrine, but he had to rely on non Bulgarian allies for mounted troops. He used light cavalry (non Bulgarian) to lure the knights in an ambush, where Bulgarian infantry used long hooks to take knights off their horses and kill them on the ground.

I am not familiar with giant maces being used by Bulgarians. St. Lucifer, could you be more specific on a battle where they were used perhaps.

In general, if we model Europe, the Elephant unit becomes obsolete. After Hanibal, no one used War Elephants in the region. How about replacing the War Elephants with something like an early Knight (requires horses and iron, but is less powerful). The regular unit would be available to anyone and Bulgaria would have a stronger version of it as UU. (how strong is a balancing issue, probably too early to discuss)

 

[3Miro]

Oh my! I should write shorter posts.

 

[jessiecat]

Oh my! I should write shorter posts.

Yes, I tend to the verbose myself sometimes. Still, yours making interesting reading. I agree with the konnik being an ideal UU using the keshik art. Another bit of art that's vacant at the moment is the Persian Immortal horseman but I don't know if it would suit the early armoured cavalry that you refer to. The Hungarians also could use an elite horseman figure so maybe one could use the keshik and the other the immortal. Just a thought. BTW What do you mean by "no residence in conquered cities" as a UP?

 

[Úmarth]

I think he means resistance.

 

[3Miro]

I meant: No resistance in conquered cities" as a UP. Sorry, that was a typo.

 

[Bob III]

If I may make a suggestion for naming the Pope. "The Pope" sounds much too impersonal, so how about using one of the common papal names? For example, Pope Sylvester VII. There was a Sylvester I, II, and III, but never a VII. That makes it a believeable name for the Pope, but makes it so you don't have to name a specific Pope.

 

[Úmarth]

Why shouldn't we just name one or two "great" Popes, like with normal civ leaders? Alexander VI maybe.

 

[Bob III]

Or maybe Leo the Great.

 

[onedreamer]

BTW Our choice of leader names depends partly on the leaderheads available. For example.
if we already have a good leaderhead for Elizabeth I, then it might be wise to use the name as well.

What about using flags like in Rhye's Civ3 (if I remember well) instead ? None commented.

 

[Úmarth]

Or maybe Leo the Great.

Nope, he's outside our timescale

What about using flags like in Rhye's Civ3 (if I remember well) instead ? None commented.

I don't know, why would you talk to a flag? I don't think it fits the metaphor.

 

[onedreamer]

you talk to the person but see the flag. *shrug* either way I'm not concerned, but it would certainly look better than reskinned LHs IMO.

 

[3Miro]

OK thinking here about Bulgaria and Byzantine UHV. Both countries were doing reasonably well until they were overrun by the Ottomans, so a survival condition seems to be appropriate. In RFC most UHV conditions consisted of two things that the corresponding civ achieved and one thing where it failed.

For Bulgaria: build 8 monasteries and 2 Chaths by 1600 gives us 300 turns. That sound too easy. How about control 8 monasteries and 2 Chaths in 1600, incorporate survival condition.

Similar for Byzantines: Every EE nation is orthodox in 1600 (or 1500). That would incorporate: survive at least the first Ottoman wave.

 

[jessiecat]

OK thinking here about Bulgaria and Byzantine UHV. Both countries were doing reasonably well until they were overrun by the Ottomans, so a survival condition seems to be appropriate. In RFC most UHV conditions consisted of two things that the corresponding civ achieved and one thing where it failed.

For Bulgaria: build 8 monasteries and 2 Chaths by 1600 gives us 300 turns. That sound too easy. How about control 8 monasteries and 2 Chaths in 1600, incorporate survival condition.

Similar for Byzantines: Every EE nation is orthodox in 1600 (or 1500). That would incorporate: survive at least the first Ottoman wave.

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

 

[ijnavy]

Back on the Leaders topic.
I think that we can take the all of the leaderheads from the game, or CIV Gold. I think that they look great.