From Wikipedia (not the most credible of sources, I know) regarding Uppåkra:
Wiki said:
As Lund is my home town, I'll refrain from making a bigger case of including it. Just submitting my findings for discussion.
Rhye's of Europe Civ Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Squirrelloid
- Start date
From Wikipedia (not the most credible of sources, I know) regarding Uppåkra:
As Lund is my home town, I'll refrain from making a bigger case of including it. Just submitting my findings for discussion.
st.lucifer
King
From Wikipedia (not the most credible of sources, I know) regarding Uppåkra:
As Lund is my home town, I'll refrain from making a bigger case of including it. Just submitting my findings for discussion.
I consider wikipedia to be pretty credible on this sort of thing, so no apologies or justifications required there.
I still lean towards Tonsberg for importance and to encourage the settlement of Norway, which might not happen otherwise. That land in Scania and Sweden will always be attractive for settlement, but we'll have to give the Norse some incentive to head W, and giving them a city up there seems like the most straightforward way to do it.
Also, starting out with Aarhus and Lund gives them a large population quickly, whcih could lead to some balance issues. Tonsberg will be harder to build from.
onedreamer
Dragon
My comments on the map are:
1- North Africa is quite empty (in number of civs). Which AI will colonize/conquer it ? North Africa wasn't under european control for most of the mod's scope, yet there is no civ starting there, and wether or not Al Andalus and Arabia will expand there is questionable. To this regard I'd move/swap the westernmost barbarian civ in N.A. into Andalusian spawn area (Tingis ?), so that having one city in North Africa will make them want expand there.
2- I really don't understand the purpouse of all those indipendents in central europe outside spawn areas, yet empty spawn areas. Purpouse ? Even less in Ireland, those towns were founded by Norsemen... In Eastern Europe, although the same argument applies, I suggest less indipendents anyways, to create a bit of variety/diversity in gameplay with western civs. IE I suggest eastern civs to start with more settlers than western and be more colonizing-oriented and less aggressive.
3- Burgundy shouldn't start there or its spawn area shouldn't be there. The burgundians were based more in the area of that indipendent city south west of their start. Making them start in that position creates a lot of problems, and is not correct, but if you really want it that way then make the spawn area stretch way more south. What's its purpouse btw ? Are we going to have civs resurrect in this modmod ? Otherwise having a spawn area that doesn't include starting towns doesn't serve much.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
1. The barb city in N. Africa is Tlemcen. Tangier and Fez are already in the spawn area for
Al Andalus. So that's 5 cities for them to start with in 700AD. Though Tlemcen could flip or
be captured early. More than enough I think. Cyrene/Barca and Tunis could be Byzantine from
the start as they were historically, so they'd be prizes for Al Andalus and the Arabs I think.
2. I see your point about the indys in Central Europe though the Balkans had already been
settled by Serbs and other Slavs as early as 500AD so having Beograd, Ragusa and Spalato
as indys or barbs isn't excessive esp. as Spalato will flip to Venice immediately. And I think
we'll only have Dublin in Ireland which we soon fall to Norse raiders anyway I expect.
3. Burgundy is a real problem though. I agree that they should spawn South and SE but wasn't
their capitol Aix-la Chappele (Aachen) at some point, which isn't far from Brussels? I think the
indy city is Lyon. I'd rather see them start 3 sqs. south on the lake so Geneva would be their
capitol. They could flip Lyon for their 2nd. city. IMO
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
Why does someone need to expand there? Having it full of pirates and the odd European Outpost/Muslim civ city is fine by me for the time frame of the mod.
1. That map does not have when the independents turn up. The Saxons should spawn after germany (well prague will probably be concurrent) but before poland.
2. Empty spawn areas allow players to choose city sites and get citys with civ-specific bonus. Whilst Independents show the minor states which were conquered after the main civs reached political organisation
3. Since the eastern civs will spawn later thats pretty much a given don't you think?
4. Some towns were founded by Norsemen, but there were Irish kingdoms beforehand and the Norse did a good be of conquering - independent cities to capture represents the situation better.
I think that civs should resurrect - it was an integral part of RFC after all. "Burgandy" moved round one hell of a lot, but I believe it was more the Duchy that was being represented in this mod...plus the original Burgundians started north and headed south, though I agree perhaps it should include Lyons. The purpose of Burgundy is to a) Show the several strong state that had bad luck otl (Germannic Kingdom of Burgundy, Lothar's Frankish state and the Franks in general, The Kingdom and County of Burgundy in the HRE, the powerful Duchy during the Hundred years wars, Charles the Bald's state) b) to complicate things in the early west so that its not merely a German-french dynamic, c) to have another state with strong interests in Northern italy to increases the fun turnover there.
onedreamer
Dragon
Ahh sorry... I don't see Fez or Tangier on that map though (nor Cyrenae). If they will be there, disregard this point.
The humanity started settling way before 500 AD, especially in Europe and in the mediterranean, so it's hard to find a big area that wasn't settled in 500 AD. My question though was is there a purpouse, in the mod, to have so many indipendents between Germany and Poland but none of them in the spawn area ?
3. Burgundy is a real problem though. I agree that they should spawn South and SE but wasn't their capitol Aix-la Chappele (Aachen) at some point, which isn't far from Brussels? I think the indy city is Lyon. I'd rather see them start 3 sqs. south on the lake so Geneva would be their
capitol. They could flip Lyon for their 2nd. city. IMO
yes, but "at some point" is not in 500 AD. Plus if we make them start there, they will most probably colonize german spawn lands, which is not what we want I think.
yeah but the problem is exactly that someone WILL expand there and the question I was asking is who ? If we leave it to the case, it might even be Hungary, the question is: is it what we want ?
For the rest ok, I thought they were all indipendents at start.
Yeah, I fully agree (in fact, I propose to include the Burgundian civ
), though I think that all these purpouses would work better if Burgundy starts in its real location. I'm not sure where the Burgundi came from, probably north as you say, though they settled there and called it Burgundia. Now called Bourgogne.
st.lucifer
King
The Burgundy placement issue is a tough one. I'm fine with moving them a couple of tiles S and flipping Lyons, which would give them more options for expansion - but either way, that's going to be a hard UHV, and the AI Burgundy is almost guaranteed to collapse. If there's a way to make a civ's respawn more likely by coding it in, that might be the best way to handle it. One possible benefit to moving them is pushing back the start date to a more historically accurate time - France isn't likely to control any of the Burgundian core region if we have them spawn in 650-700 or so. If we start them with Lyon and Dijon, that's a pretty solid core area which gives them lots of options and makes them more likely to stick.
Onedreamer, it seems to me like the most likely colonizers of N. Africa (besides the Muslim civs) are Venice and Genoa. That's fine by me. We'll start out with 2 cities in modern-day Tunisia and with Cyrene/Barca, but I'd feel more comfortable having those as indies or barb cities than with giving them to the Byzantines, unless we're adding them to hobble research and stability. Even so, we'll have to see whether the benefits of owning, say, Tunis (which is going to be a pretty good city) outweigh the maintenance costs. If they do, we probably don't want it in Byzantine hands.
I nerfed the terrain in N. Africa pretty severely to keep it somewhat barren. There isn't really a civ we could justify putting there - the Maghreb was too large to be controlled by any one group for long periods of time, and the periods of unified political and cultural control are too scattered to include. If al-Andalus, Spain, Venice, Genoa, France, or Arabia want the territory, they're welcome to expand there - but I think it'll be a low priority for most of them in terms of settler maps.
Most of the E. Europe independents are going to show up pretty late. Figuring out the dates on them is one of the jobs that needs doing, if you'd like to take it on.
Onedreamer, it seems to me like the most likely colonizers of N. Africa (besides the Muslim civs) are Venice and Genoa. That's fine by me. We'll start out with 2 cities in modern-day Tunisia and with Cyrene/Barca, but I'd feel more comfortable having those as indies or barb cities than with giving them to the Byzantines, unless we're adding them to hobble research and stability. Even so, we'll have to see whether the benefits of owning, say, Tunis (which is going to be a pretty good city) outweigh the maintenance costs. If they do, we probably don't want it in Byzantine hands.
I nerfed the terrain in N. Africa pretty severely to keep it somewhat barren. There isn't really a civ we could justify putting there - the Maghreb was too large to be controlled by any one group for long periods of time, and the periods of unified political and cultural control are too scattered to include. If al-Andalus, Spain, Venice, Genoa, France, or Arabia want the territory, they're welcome to expand there - but I think it'll be a low priority for most of them in terms of settler maps.
Most of the E. Europe independents are going to show up pretty late. Figuring out the dates on them is one of the jobs that needs doing, if you'd like to take it on.
3Miro
Deity
That is something to consider. On the Balkan map that I am working right now, I work with the prebuild cities of:
Constantinople (Byzantine)
Adrianopolis (Byzantine)
Thessaloníki (Byzantine)
Athens (Byzantine)
(Bulgarian spawn area north of the Balkan mountain starts empty)
Sofia (?????, historically it was Byzantine and it was conquered by the Bulgarians in 9th century)
Beograde (Independent)
Ragusa (????)
Split/Spalato (????)
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
Yeah, I fully agree (in fact, I propose to include the Burgundian civ
The pre-migration age Burgundi lived near the Vistula apparently
Heh, but 'real location' is an entirely debateable point with the Big B. The First Barbarian Kingdom was where you propose, Middle Francia north and south of it, the later Kingdom further to the south, and the Duchy further to the north.
I proposed the spawn zone on the map to a) show the later iterations of Burgundy and b) to stop France and Germany grabbing the north.
Thus, changed map with names, dates, and suggested Barbarian Invasions
Opps forgot to name and date Milan (570), Zurich (960), and Munich (1100) for those alpine german independents, and Belograd at 630 (slavics arrive)...
And the map based ones of the UHVs I suggested earlier
Akhera
Chieftain
I thought that we agreed that Poland will start at Krakow. I would also put Prague 1 tile south, make austrian spawn zone smaller and put Olomouc instead of Brno. I don't know very much about history of other regions, so I'm ok with the rest
st.lucifer
King
A couple of questions/points:
-The Norse are starting in the location of Aarhus (NW Denmark), rather than Copenhagen. There'll be room for Copenhagen, too, but they'll have to found it.
-Is the city on the Po Verona? Bologna? Might it be better to leave that land open for Genoa and Venice to fight over? Milan should stay in. Now that Rome is unplayable, it may also be worthwhile to try and squeeze in both Pisa and Florence, rather than just the one.
-Let's take the cities besides Dubh Linn out of Ireland. I realize they're old, and that Ireland wasn't a big Celtic wasteland before the English showed up, but they'd see it that way, so let's give them a moorland full of roving axemen rather than a island of settled cities.
-Some questions on independents in Spain - I'd replace Vitoria with Zaragoza, and consider leaving out La Coruna entirely. Which cities flip to al-Andalus? There's only the one shown in their spawn area in Iberia, and I'm thinking that they should start with 0-1 settlers, but a couple of cities on each landmass. I don't want Iberia to start with 11 cities, but we might consider adding some of the central ones and leaving the Atlantic edge unsettled. This provides a choice between military struggle and settlement for Spain, gives al-Andalus a chance to build infrastructure and wonders in Cordoba and other cities, and gives Portugal a chance to expand peacefully without having to immediately fight for territory.
On the UHV goal map:
-The amount of territory that Russia and Arabia have to control there is huge. While historically accurate, it may not be feasible in gameplay. We may want to cut Russia a break on Wallachia and Poland, and cut off the Maghreb goal at Tunis for Arabia, also eliminating the Balearic islands and Corsica.
-I'd add Rhodes and maybe Cyprus to Venice's UHV territory. Adding Malta for Genoa would be fair, but would stick them with a unproductive city.
A proposed UP for Austria - why not just borrow the Entente from France, to reflect the diplomatic leverage of the Hapsburgs?
-The Norse are starting in the location of Aarhus (NW Denmark), rather than Copenhagen. There'll be room for Copenhagen, too, but they'll have to found it.
-Is the city on the Po Verona? Bologna? Might it be better to leave that land open for Genoa and Venice to fight over? Milan should stay in. Now that Rome is unplayable, it may also be worthwhile to try and squeeze in both Pisa and Florence, rather than just the one.
-Let's take the cities besides Dubh Linn out of Ireland. I realize they're old, and that Ireland wasn't a big Celtic wasteland before the English showed up, but they'd see it that way, so let's give them a moorland full of roving axemen rather than a island of settled cities.
-Some questions on independents in Spain - I'd replace Vitoria with Zaragoza, and consider leaving out La Coruna entirely. Which cities flip to al-Andalus? There's only the one shown in their spawn area in Iberia, and I'm thinking that they should start with 0-1 settlers, but a couple of cities on each landmass. I don't want Iberia to start with 11 cities, but we might consider adding some of the central ones and leaving the Atlantic edge unsettled. This provides a choice between military struggle and settlement for Spain, gives al-Andalus a chance to build infrastructure and wonders in Cordoba and other cities, and gives Portugal a chance to expand peacefully without having to immediately fight for territory.
On the UHV goal map:
-The amount of territory that Russia and Arabia have to control there is huge. While historically accurate, it may not be feasible in gameplay. We may want to cut Russia a break on Wallachia and Poland, and cut off the Maghreb goal at Tunis for Arabia, also eliminating the Balearic islands and Corsica.
-I'd add Rhodes and maybe Cyprus to Venice's UHV territory. Adding Malta for Genoa would be fair, but would stick them with a unproductive city.
A proposed UP for Austria - why not just borrow the Entente from France, to reflect the diplomatic leverage of the Hapsburgs?
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
Just to add a couple of points to your comments.
The city on the Po is Verona. Bologna is far to the south.
I thought the northern Spanish barb was Pamplona but whichever it should remain to represent
the Basque entity which was a major stumbling block to Christians and Moors alike.
I thought that Al Andalus started by landing with an army on the south coast of Spain with Tangier and Fez as starting cities. If we had them flip Cordoba and Sevilla after a couple of turns with 1 settler so they could found Granada I think that would limit them enough but give them a realistic start.
I think the barb invasions need to be discussed further. If we have too many wouldn't that have
a bad effect on stability? Also the Great Army invasion of England in 870 should be a Norse
event, rather than a barb one as the Danelaw dominated eastern and northern England for nearly
200 years prior to the Norman Conquest IMO.
The city on the Po is Verona. Bologna is far to the south.
I thought the northern Spanish barb was Pamplona but whichever it should remain to represent
the Basque entity which was a major stumbling block to Christians and Moors alike.
I thought that Al Andalus started by landing with an army on the south coast of Spain with Tangier and Fez as starting cities. If we had them flip Cordoba and Sevilla after a couple of turns with 1 settler so they could found Granada I think that would limit them enough but give them a realistic start.
I think the barb invasions need to be discussed further. If we have too many wouldn't that have
a bad effect on stability? Also the Great Army invasion of England in 870 should be a Norse
event, rather than a barb one as the Danelaw dominated eastern and northern England for nearly
200 years prior to the Norman Conquest IMO.
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
My mistake.
Verona probably, I thought having a nice independent would stop other state plonking down cities on (what should be) really nice land until the merchent republics show up. Also it means Venice has to focus elsewhere till they can take the city. Re: two cities sounds good, but they should both be quite nice so people try and conquer them
.*shrug* should be tougher than axemen though
.Vitoria represents the Basques and their need to rebel against everyone
, and Zaragoza is already there as the city on the Ebro to the south. I like La Coruna as a) its celtishness shows the variety of the Iberian penisula and b) there is a chance for Portugal to take it (which nearly happened several times).They get Fez in morocco, but I thought 3 settlers should give the player some leeway with the city layout. If we are having set cities the Seville and Granda probably.
Hmmm...Portugal was born as militant state after all.
We could it like Rhye does with X cities in each of several zones (Magreb, Islands etc for the Arabs for example) and stipulate that no other civ can have a city there - thus you can have something at quite low density.
Good idea.
Umm, because the most of the their history consists of people organising against them as well due to their luck with inheritence
? I still think a 'Power of Inheritance' were a) independents nearby can randomly flip to their control or b) There is a chance of a vassal flipping to become part of Austria is far more apt.Indeed, Pamplona would be amoung the Pyrennes and a crummy city due to the mountains.
The starting spot needs to be where we what the capital - the AI will always found its capital within one turn, so Cordoba needs to be founded by settler. Fez and other cities will flip after that.
Isn't that the point of them
. Plus playtesting can tune them.Note a) there is no Great army spawn in England - the Norse civ will have to do that itself b) The Great armies were generally independent of the Danish states c) The Norse civ seems more Canute than the Danelaw d) the AI is pretty dumb at the old seaborne invasion thing...
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
I'm a bit confused now about the Al Andalus start. I think it was decided long ago (st. lucifer will correct me if I'm wrong) that they would start with a least one city in Morocco, land their army and flip a couple of cities in Spain, as happened in history. We seem to have conflicting versions here.
Also, Vitoria just won't do as a city. It was founded in 1551 whereas Pamplona was founded by Pompey in 74BC. It was the capitol of the Basque Kingdom of Pamplona and later the royal capitol of Navarrre. While near the mountains it's not in them. It's on a rich alluvial plain. Believe me, it's flat.
I've been there. Sorry to disagree but Pamplona it must be, in my view.
Finally. Why can't the Norse Great Army appear in Norfolk in 870 as it did in history? It had a major
impact on the history of Britain. We are trying to make this mod fairly accurate historically, aren't we?
Also, Vitoria just won't do as a city. It was founded in 1551 whereas Pamplona was founded by Pompey in 74BC. It was the capitol of the Basque Kingdom of Pamplona and later the royal capitol of Navarrre. While near the mountains it's not in them. It's on a rich alluvial plain. Believe me, it's flat.
I've been there. Sorry to disagree but Pamplona it must be, in my view.
Finally. Why can't the Norse Great Army appear in Norfolk in 870 as it did in history? It had a major
impact on the history of Britain. We are trying to make this mod fairly accurate historically, aren't we?
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
They spawn in spain and the north african cities flip the turn after. You can't really have it any other way if you want the AI to get the capital in Spain. See Turkey in RFC.
Whut? You're reading the Entry for the Vitoria in Brazil
Iberian Vitoria was founded in 1181, and there was a city on the spot for centuries before. Also the fact that Pamplona is on a rich plain in real life doesn't matter because that's not shown in the resolution of the civ map - where Pamplona is pretty crummy.Finally. Why can't the Norse Great Army appear in Norfolk in 870 as it did in history? It had a major
impact on the history of Britain. We are trying to make this mod fairly accurate historically, aren't we?
Yeah, but that should be the Norse civ doing that (building galleys, berzerkers and what not), I wasn't sure if we were planning on scripting events for the main civs (whould have thought not). Whilst the Normans and low countries great armies were more seperate from the Norse states politically, and thus can be done as barbarians.
jessiecat
Divine Monarch
They spawn in spain and the north african cities flip the turn after. You can't really have it any other way if you want the AI to get the capital in Spain. See Turkey in RFC.
Whut? You're reading the Entry for the Vitoria in Brazil
Yeah, but that should be the Norse civ doing that (building galleys, berzerkers and what not), I wasn't sure if we were planning on scripting events for the main civs (whould have thought not). Whilst the Normans and low countries great armies were more seperate from the Norse states politically, and thus can be done as barbarians.
Yes you're right about Vitoria. Sloppy of me. Sorry.
However, I'm right about Pamplona. It's nowhere near the mountains (OK 10 to 12 miles from them.) But it lies in a circular alluvial plain called the Cuenca de Pamplona and has been famous for it's cereal crops since Roman times. It should be placed away from the mts on the WB map otherwise it would be where Jaca is in real life. It's the ancient capitol of Navarre. Why would you choose a lesser town? Solution = move Pamplona if you like. Easy!
I'm glad to leave the Al Andalus start to st. lucifer to decide but I think it's the way I've described.
As far as the Great Army, I see no reason why a civ can't have a scripted event. It happens in RFC so what's the problem?
BTW I just checked st. lucifers' latest WB map. Within it's BFS Pamplona has 9 hill tiles, 7 plains tiles
and 1 sea tile, but NO mountain tiles. That includes pigs, grain, iron and copper along with about 7
forested tiles to chop. Hardly what you would call a "crummy" location, would you?
st.lucifer
King
Verona probably, I thought having a nice independent would stop other state plonking down cities on (what should be) really nice land until the merchent republics show up. Also it means Venice has to focus elsewhere till they can take the city. Re: two cities sounds good, but they should both be quite nice so people try and conquer them
Makes sense, but I can't see an AI having a clear path to the Po valley before the V/G spawns. You do have a point about Venice, though - and given the placement of Milan, Genoa will be handicapped to get there. Venice can simply walk a settler through the swamp. Verona's fine.
It'll require spreading them an extra tile apart, but it shouldn't be any trouble to make both Florence and Pisa strong and desirable cities.
Vitoria represents the Basques and their need to rebel against everyone
They get Fez in morocco, but I thought 3 settlers should give the player some leeway with the city layout. If we are having set cities the Seville and Granda probably.
Hmmm...Portugal was born as militant state after all.
Blah, sorry I missed Zaragoza. I'm still going to vote for Pamplona over Vitoria, though - if necessary, we'll give it a little more agricultural land to counterbalance the intended thickening of the Pyrenees. I'd propose Bilbao as a compromise candidate, but it was founded too late to be a reasonable substitute.
Those are good arguments for La Coruna. I withdraw my objection - there should still be some open land for settling along the northern coast and in the center.
That might work for the Maghreb. I still think the Balearics are a little far out for Arabia to be reponsible for - maybe historically accurate, but it would be better to put them into the orbit of al-Andalus, assuming that they have a territory UHV. As far as Russia goes, I'd support having them go as far as Minsk and Konigsberg (Moldova in the SW), but requiring them to eliminate Ukraine, Poland, and come into major territorial conflict with Bulgaria, Sweden, and possibly Germany, Hungary, Genoa, and the Ottomans is a tall order.
Umm, because the most of the their history consists of people organising against them as well due to their luck with inheritence
Any vassal, any country, anytime? That's an intriguing power. I don't think there'll be enough independents at that point for the power to make that much of a difference, but it's worth considering.
Good point. Let's give them one settler at Cordoba, and Sevilla/Granada on the flip.
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
For the vassal one, something like a 1-1.5% chance each turn that their cities flip to your control provided you have a high stability rating.
Re: an independent based power - well you'll just have to go collapse some civs to release their cities as independents then eh?
onedreamer
Dragon
I think it is even desirable if some civs have harder UHVs than others. So that's fine to me. Burgundy is almost guaranteed to collapse IF you place it where it is currently placed it. That'sthe main problem I was hinting to when I said to move it to its real location.
I disagree because Burgundi were there before the Franks invaded France.
Exactly.
I can give my suggestions. Where's the list though ? And btw, I can't find the wiki page for this project >_<
Why is it debatable ? All civs start where they were in the date when they spawn, the same should apply to Burgundy. Let me anticipate something: Burgundy has a very peculiar history which will be hard to recreate, if not impossible in its real life mechanics since the dominant element in that history are marriages and changes of land. The human player might be able to do it (hard UHV as St. Lucifer mentioned), the AI most probably won't, but I think we should at least make so that it won't end up easily squeezed by Germany and France when the first spawns, or vice versa that it doesn't hinder Germany too much. The most suitable location to prevent this is incidentally also Burgundy's location in 500 AD, so I think there isn't much debate here. But we might discuss on how to make it easier for Burgundy to colonize Flanders than for France and Germany.
Internationally and politically speaking Pisa was very important from the Roman Age until 1300, more than Florence, whos importance started to grow much thereafter (especially since its conquest of Pisa in 1400). Until then Pisa was the most important city in Tuscany. It had expanded a lot in the Mediterranean: Sardinia, Sicily, and they had huge trade concessions (ie little to no tax duties) in the Byzantine Empire (with a whole area in Constantinopolis reserved to Pisan residents/merchants), holy land and Crimea. They became the "favored nation" by Byzantium but this plus their growing aims on Tuscany's lands made it become enemy of pretty much all the republics there, which were closer to the Pope (which in that age wasn't in good relationships with Constantinopolis). Pisa was the main antagonist of Genua in their early stages, they fought many wars until a devasting loss by Pisa at the end of 1200's, which followed by the Aragon's conquest of Sardinia in early 1300 signed the end of the glorious days for Pisa. I was surprised to not see Pisa as a strong indipendent acting as an obstacle for Genua, so I am glad you are considering it. Actually, I'd say that at Genua's start, if we have to choose between the existance of Pisa and Florence, I'd choose the first. Map of Pisan expansions:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/c/c3/Espansione_di_Pisa.png
From the menu:
-Conquered territories
-Strong commercial presence
-Important trade centers
-Concessions of the Kingdom of Sicily under the Hohenstaufen House
-Trade routes
Remember that although city states with apparently little to no power, the Maritime Republics were strong commercial powers literally dominating the Mediterranean, which was the most important sea in Europe until 1492; and that even the biggest Empires had to come down to deals with them to do just about anything in the Mediterranean. How are you going to represent this ingame (probably with UPs) I don't know, but it's not going to be easy
Exactly, like I already said by 500 AD civilization was pretty much anywhere in Europe. You can mention cities or settlements everywhere. But this should definitely NOT be the argument for their inclusion as indys IMO. The question should be: how important was Dublin for Europe until English conquest ? Heh...
Only if the defenders fail in defending
I still don't see Tangier on the new map. I really want to make a case for it because since Andalusian mainland will be in Iberia it's better if their north african starting city is Tangier.
the capital doesn't need to be founded by settler. For example, take RFC: France in the 3000 AD start. The capital will be Paris even when Lutetia is already there.
Disenfrancised
Beep Beep
I thought that was because Lutetia got removed by France spawning?
Quick point: thinking about it we should move the Dutch start back, to give them more playable turns (160 isn't much). If we move them to an earlier time where (much like the Americans in RFC) they are indubitably dutch, but before their actual rebellion and statehood . I would suggest 1494 (giving 202 turns of game play) when the Treaty of Senlis saw France giving up claims to the now Habsburg Netherlands.
That or extending the scope to 1850AD with 50 extra turns
Similar threads
