Rhye's of Europe Organized Development Thread

V

Vince-G

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
81
Location
Her Majesty's Britannic Domain
The other thread is a bit of a shambles. I think we need a more organized thread so people can see clearly what there is to be done and so on. I'll update this post and the one below in a bit.

Rhye if you see this post as superfluous feel free to get rid of it, but I think we do need to have a concise reference point for this scenario's development.

---

Rhye's of Europe​

Introduction

Rhye's of Europe is a scenario under development which uses the RFC game system, based entirely in Europe. The game is planned to run from 870 to 1900. You'll be able to play many of the major medieval and early industrial European powers: from Hungary to Venice, there'll be a wide variety of playable civilizations, each with their own UHV, UP and territorially set cities, just like the original RFC.

Calling All Programmers and Writers

Please post here or PM me so that you're "registered" as a developer - this is just to keep tabs on who's doing what and so on, to make it more efficient generally. This is for all writers, artists, and coders alike: if you have some kind of skill to contribute and the time to do it don't hesitate.

Development Team

- Vince-G: co-ordinator, writer primarily (some code)
- mitsho: writer
- Úmarth: coder (? confirm please)

Civ List

Disputed
Not Civ4: BTS civ

Spoiler :
France
England
Celts
Netherlands
Burgundy
Spain (Castille)
Portugal
Andalusia / Cordoba / Almoravids
Norse
Holy Roman Empire
Poland-Lithuania
Austria
Switzerland
Byzantine Empire
Russia (Muscovy)
Hungary
Ottoman Empire
Abbasids, Fatimids, Mameluks
Papal States
Venetia
Lombard League
Kiev
Novgorod


Moderator Action: Thread Moved to Rhye's of Europe Forum.
--Ozbenno
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're right it is a bit of a shambles, so care to give lazy people like me a summary of what Rhye's of Europe is? :D
 
RockTheCazbah87 said:
I like the idea. Looking forward to it. :D
Click to expand...

Good good.

To Mitsho and other interested developers:

I was just thinking that we could perhaps impose large penalties for Venice and the other Italian states for expansion, in the form of stability (patricianal government not too suited for running a multi-city nation) and economy. What do you think?
 
Since I'm not much of a programmer, I be helping out by giving suggestions and providing cold beer/rootbeer (for those under 21).

^ Sounds like a good idea to me, but maybe this penalty would diminish when conquering other Italian states?
 
Well, Yes, I in any case would favour something to hinder Venice to become a large land-based state. But it must have the possibility to become a "large" (sea based) trading post/station empire... Why not use stability, something that can do this.

So, which way do we go? Does someone (you... ;)) create a "vision" of the mod or do you want to discuss it with people in here (the latter normally doesn't work)? Who is going to do the actual work? (I can't/won't).

If you want to discuss it in here, I propose the following scheme:

1) Timespan?
2) Map Orientation?
3) Which Civs?
4) Tech tree // Units // buildings // Wonders etc. ... (Rhyes Idea: Stay as close to "normal" game as possible)
5) Then looking at each civ
a) Entry Date?
b) UHV?
c) UP?
d) Ratings
5) Careful Choice of the Actual map (that late so we can take into account everything beforehand and change the map accordingly...)
6) Implementation of all this leads to a first playable version!
-------
7) tweaking & further additions like (in no particular order)
a) (Historical) Events
b) Religions & AP
c) Colonies and European Economy...
d) Congresses
e) Stability... !!!
f) ...

--> We can even start with a playbale version after point 5a, namely without UP&UHV being done. Also the buildings/tech tree/units/etc. don't have to be finished. It is important to bring a playable version out as soon as possible

----------------------

So, Timespan, You say 450 to 1750.

- What happened in or after 450? "476 - Rome Adex" goes a rhyme. If you start that early, you need to have the Western Roman Empire... No thanks. Further things like the battle of Tours need to be included. and so on and so on. Then we have the Frankish Kingdom which was important but it'd need to be destroyed to have a historical play. which is difficult if you play it as a human (for AI not), but which civs would you like to play at that time if not the Franks? So I vote for leaving it out and start in 870 AD. That is the time of the treaty of Merseen when France and Germany split up. The popular middle age scenario of civ3 conquest started at this time as well. (Actually, it started 30 years earlier with the more famous treaty of Verdun, but I wouldn't like it. Of course, this is not perfect as well, as England for example loses quite a bit... and we practically would need to have something statelike already for "Germany" and France...
On the other hand, I like the idea of excluding "modern" European history, as this can become way to complicated (ideologies). Still, 1750 is rather early (and a bit arbitrarily), don't you think? 1789 as the date when "Ancien Regime"-Europe stopped to exist. But this leaves out a lot of conflict... 1815, as the end of Napoleonic Europe? 1848 as a revolutionary year? 1871 as the final set up of modern Europe, a lot of developments came to an end in that year, political and others. So I would Propose that as an ending date. As it is a unaesthetic number, let's move it a bit back (the prussian UHV cannot be achieved with the last turns, it wouldn't make sense, would it? ;)). Thus, I have: 870 to 1900, makes 1030 years, less than what you proposed.

m
 
450-1750 was roughly the timespan of how Whitefire wanted the game to be, not my own vision. I agree 870 to 1900 actually works somewhat better.

Rex rgis: will deal with these things in turn - after we've got the game's structure as mitsho is laying out, then we can carry on to do these things he's listed as "7.".

If I've understood you we actually have 1 ready then: 870-1900 seems perfectly fine to me, and if anyone objects they can say so.

I think we should move number 4 down, and have 3 and 5 together. I mean this is, after all, a Rhye's of scenario and so it should use virtually the same - if not the same - units, techs and so on as RFC (so, close to the normal game). So perhaps swap 4 and 5?
 
How about there being both a Holy Roman Empire and Prussia? The HRE would spawn early, and then Prussia would appear late in the game, on cities defected from the HRE and any independents in the area (???). This would prevent the need for ridiculous amounts of independents in Germany, and allow one of Prussia's UHVs to be to conquer or vassalize the HRE.
 
How are colonies going to work. Since many european powers like the netherlands and portugal had vast colonial lands in comparison to their homelands, how can it be implemented?
Click to expand...

i suggest colonies being wonders that become available with a colonialism tech, giving ressources and hammer/gold/science boni...
 
Some thoughts:

(1) The HRE: HRE should be a title that can be awarded to a country by the AP and has certain benefits. It should not be a civ name. We should have Austria be a playable civ, and probably the Teutonic Knights be a playable civ. Prussia isn't important until very late, and i have some objections to including the industrial era in a medieval focused scenario (see below).

(2) We should limit ourselves more by technological/cultural era and not by specific events so a unified thematic game can be produced. Even in a loosely construed middle ages there is a remarkable amount of technological and social change to account for, all of which is rather interesting, and much of which will get lost or obscured if we take the game much past the Renaissance.

(3) I would argue for stopping the game before the Napoleonic era for a couple of reasons: (A) It will be impossible to represent the organizational changes in military structure which made Napoleonic France so successful in a civ-style combat framework. Basically, military thinking underwent a substantial change during that period, and many of Napoleon's early victories are due to his adopting a cutting edge theoretical organizational doctrine and implementing it, which gave his army a substantial advantage in deployment and keeping his opponent from retreating. It wasn't until his foes adopted the same doctrines that they were able to defeat Napoleon's forces. (B) The french revolution implies a marked change in the nature of government and how governments are perceived. It really is a good measure of the start of "modern" government theory. One could equally well make an argument for the rise of the United States heralding the same thing, except the impact wouldn't be felt in europe until the French Revolution (which really was a flawed attempt to bring the American ideology to continental europe). (C) Concommittant to the change in perception of government, the french revolution also carried with it a profound difference in the role of the peasantry, and the ideas of what makes a country culturally and socially.

If nothing else, stopping at 1900 gives these themes too little time. As they are not going to be a focus of the scenario, it would be far better to just exclude them entirely.

(D) Finally, it strikes me that focusing on Europe's feudal period is probably the best policy. Including things like Revolutionary France makes the differences in implementation of feudal systems seem rather minor, when instead they should be a focus of the scenario.

(3) Skipping the period of Charlemagne feels like a mistake for a scenario that looks like its mostly focusing on the medieval period. In particular, the rise of a feudal system should probably be taken as the starting period. I would argue for either the fall of Rome or the start of the reign of Clovis I of Merovingian France as the beginning of the scenario, although i'm not recalling the dates offhand. I'm pretty sure this means 6th century sometime.

(4) I like the suggestion on colonies as wonders.

(5) Another thought on end date: 1776 marks the start of colonies escaping the control of colonial powers with the successful American war of independence. Ending at 1775 seems reasonable as it means we don't have to worry about how colonies get lost. It should also be noted that the later we go, the more important things and events outside of europe should be, which will be harder to accomodate.

Conclusion on timespan: ~500 AD - 1775 AD. I'd be far happier ending it earlier than that as compared to later. The start date shouldn't be any later than 600 AD.
 
holy king said:
i suggest colonies being wonders that become available with a colonialism tech, giving ressources and hammer/gold/science boni...
Click to expand...

Reminds me of another mod ;)

Squirrelloid said:
Some thoughts:

(3) I would argue for stopping the game before the Napoleonic era for a couple of reasons: (A) It will be impossible to represent the organizational changes in military structure which made Napoleonic France so successful in a civ-style combat framework. Basically, military thinking underwent a substantial change during that period, and many of Napoleon's early victories are due to his adopting a cutting edge theoretical organizational doctrine and implementing it, which gave his army a substantial advantage in deployment and keeping his opponent from retreating. It wasn't until his foes adopted the same doctrines that they were able to defeat Napoleon's forces. (B) The french revolution implies a marked change in the nature of government and how governments are perceived. It really is a good measure of the start of "modern" government theory. One could equally well make an argument for the rise of the United States heralding the same thing, except the impact wouldn't be felt in europe until the French Revolution (which really was a flawed attempt to bring the American ideology to continental europe). (C) Concommittant to the change in perception of government, the french revolution also carried with it a profound difference in the role of the peasantry, and the ideas of what makes a country culturally and socially.

If nothing else, stopping at 1900 gives these themes too little time. As they are not going to be a focus of the scenario, it would be far better to just exclude them entirely.

(D) Finally, it strikes me that focusing on Europe's feudal period is probably the best policy. Including things like Revolutionary France makes the differences in implementation of feudal systems seem rather minor, when instead they should be a focus of the scenario.
Click to expand...

O_o
All these objections would be valid for the regular RFC too... I think none of them are actually a problem, as Vince-G I think the tech tree should stay the same, maybe a couple added dead-ends (similar to the mod mentioned above, namely Europa Europa 3) but no more. The only things to change in the tech tree are Wonders and Religions, IMO. Instead of worring about military originizational revolutions, that don't seem of such great impact to me maybe because I live in the old continent, I would discuss about the social impact religions had in Europe: Heresy, Crusades, Reforms, etc. It would be nice to add these as a game element. And maybe the feel of "dynasticism" of the european royal families (I have a coupla ideas about this that I thought for a mod I wanted to make on medieval europe but that I will never manage to do).

(3) Skipping the period of Charlemagne feels like a mistake for a scenario that looks like its mostly focusing on the medieval period. In particular, the rise of a feudal system should probably be taken as the starting period. I would argue for either the fall of Rome or the start of the reign of Clovis I of Merovingian France as the beginning of the scenario, although i'm not recalling the dates offhand. I'm pretty sure this means 6th century sometime.
Click to expand...

Fully agree about early feudalism and vassalage, but you had already made a point number 3 ;)

(5) Another thought on end date: 1776 marks the start of colonies escaping the control of colonial powers with the successful American war of independence. Ending at 1775 seems reasonable as it means we don't have to worry about how colonies get lost. It should also be noted that the later we go, the more important things and events outside of europe should be, which will be harder to accomodate.
Click to expand...

Hmmm well if I'm not wrong most of South America obtained independence only from half of the 19th century, African and Asian colonies in the 20th century, so I would say ending the game in 1900 seems fine, or maybe at half the 19th, or in 1861, when Italy was unified and the world changed ( :rolleyes: ). No, seriously, I think we should first think HOW would the game end (space race is out of question I'd guess); the best date for its end will come after answering this question.
 
onedreamer said:
All these objections would be valid for the regular RFC too... I think none of them are actually a problem, as Vince-G I think the tech tree should stay the same, maybe a couple added dead-ends (similar to the mod mentioned above, namely Europa Europa 3) but no more. The only things to change in the tech tree are Wonders and Religions, IMO. Instead of worring about military originizational revolutions, that don't seem of such great impact to me maybe because I live in the old continent, I would discuss about the social impact religions had in Europe: Heresy, Crusades, Reforms, etc. It would be nice to add these as a game element. And maybe the feel of "dynasticism" of the european royal families (I have a coupla ideas about this that I thought for a mod I wanted to make on medieval europe but that I will never manage to do).
Click to expand...

Except those revolutions in military organization ultimately did have social consequences. Not that I think including the social impact of religions is a bad idea, i just think we could do both.

I think we should ultimately revise and focus the tech tree substantially. Because otherwise it'll just feel like abbreviated civIV and not like a fully fleshed out scenario.

I should note that the changes Napoleon caused in how war was conducted have been among the most significant in the history of warfare. But because differences in weapon technology are far more obvious than differences in confrontational doctrine to a lay person, Napoleon merely gets lauded as a great general, while in reality he had as much of an advantage because of doctrinal differences as a rifle would against an armored knight. In fact, he lost most if not all of the engagements when he and his opponents were on equal doctrinal footing.

I should note Civ has traditionally ignored military organization, which is a shame, but the combat model doesn't really accomodate it. However, when the opportunity exists to restrict a scenario to just one predominant military organization doctrine (painting in broad strokes here, obviously), that is definitely a plus. I'd already made a lengthy post on what I'd like to see on the military end of Rhyes of Europe - mostly to correct for weirdness in how units are handled in CivIV compared to their actual historical military value.

In general, CivIV avoids some of those criticisms because its painting with a far broader brush. You don't need to dwell on different types of some government forms when the differences between Police State and Representation are so much more pronounced. But when you focus down more, you lose a lot of that variation, and so smaller variation becomes more important. (CivIVs ignoring of military organization is one of my big pet peeves actually, and one that its large focus does *not* rectify).

Additionally, I think one of the things a temporally and spatially restricted scenario should do is introduce finer gradations between various military units to allow having more advanced units be less of an advantage to keep the playing field more fair.

Fully agree about early feudalism and vassalage, but you had already made a point number 3 ;)
Click to expand...

So i did. Oops.

Hmmm well if I'm not wrong most of South America obtained independence only from half of the 19th century, African and Asian colonies in the 20th century, so I would say ending the game in 1900 seems fine, or maybe at half the 19th, or in 1861, when Italy was unified and the world changed ( :rolleyes: ). No, seriously, I think we should first think HOW would the game end (space race is out of question I'd guess); the best date for its end will come after answering this question.
Click to expand...

Oh, its a gradual process, certainly. But the loss of one of them within the game's timeframe means we have to think about how and why (mechanically) colonies become independent.

Hmm... possible victory conditions:
Conquest (duh)

Domination (duh)

Colonial Domination - control N colonies, where N is a large number. Possibly just call this Colonial Victory

Historical - complete your UHV

Cultural?

Religious - Eliminate all other religions and have your religion spread to X%. (Must also control the holy city?) See Gods of Old (bundled with BTS), which has this victory condition.

Might also want to include an "Economic" victory, but this could be bundled into UHVs for civs like Venetia.

All of these work in a 500-1775 timeframe. Actually, the possibility of Religious victory argues for an earlier end date, as religion was losing some of its importance by that time.
 
There have been a few detailed posts and I'll have to reply to each of them in turn.

For the moment however:

Can anyone who wants to be involved in this project as a developer of any sort - writer, coder or artist - state so or PM me? Just to keep a tab on everything.
 
To the colonialism debate. First Proposition: Having them as Corporations! Further farther along!

Contra Squirreloidus

1) I agree, but be careful not to confuse these things. The Pope should be independent of it. It'd need a detailled good inclusion. --> LATER!

3) That was my idea as well. Only 1900 gives a good ending as it is the end of these themes. Afterwards comes World War I and we are in the middle of "modernity". I certainly would love to make a Rhyes of Europe and not a Rhyes of the Middle Ages. Something too specific in my opinion. I fear we would loose to much if we threw out that era. But I can live with it.

4) What is it that makes the era of Charlemagne so great? What was the setup of Europe at the time? Ok, let's start earlier. Map of Europe 450 AD (fall or Western Roman Empire)

-> You have many "Barbarian" Tribes not yet settled and the huns. How do you want to represent this? You cannot start with civstyle one city civs...

I have no time to search for a better map for 600 AD, so here is a link:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/East-Hem_600ad.jpg/300px-East-Hem_600ad.jpg

Can you tell me: With which civs would you start? Here is the death of Charlemagne 814 AD:


2 Questions:
- Which civs do you start with?
- Who will get to play that huge monster ruling Europe, Carolingian Empire? Which player will be willing to see that monster crumble?

I must admit I don't have time to provide a map for my suggested date (no time sorry), but Imho, the situation looks a little bit better, and as you pointed it out with my late starting time beforhand, we can save ourselves a lot of trouble if we start with these protonationstates and can leave developments beforehand out.

However, I am ok with ~1800 as stop. As stated, we do not need to specify everything into stone now.

I am happy if we keep the tech tree as it is. Cutting and adding and tweaking a little bit. The same with the victory conditions. Otherwise, we could make Europa Europa, and not Rhyes.

So, can we close discussion on the date and then move on to map and civs? I proposed one map in the old thread (And Rhye proposed one too afaik).

m
 
I have to say that 600 is very messy: only three or four of those civs are civs that I can see having any notable impact over the long term of this scenario. 450 is even worse, there are no good playable civs around at that time that will last realistically for the course of such a scenario.

I'd say let's stick to 870. In fact I'm happier moving the start date forward than backward.

I have no major qualms about moving back the end date to 1800 or so, but I agree with mitsho about 1900 being a good date to stop.

For now I think it's safe to assume 870-1900 as the time span of this scenario. We'll get the problems sorted out as they come, and quite frankly we can keep the end date in discussion after the civs and so on have been decided (I don't see the collapse or rise of any major civ really by that time).

Let's move on to the civs themselves and keep the time span as a reasonably tentative 870-1900.

Also: is it possible and/or reasonable to have 24 civs on the map? (Since I'm finalizing my proposed civ list)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Publicola
How well do you know this mod? Quiz yourself
Replies
2
Views
1K
Publicola
Publicola
GregFred187
RFCEurope German translation
Replies
0
Views
391
GregFred187
GregFred187
SebastianP
Third UHV as Venice
Replies
4
Views
1K
SebastianP
SebastianP
hokath
  • Locked
(7-27) Buff Fealty Policies Organized Religion and Divine Right
Replies
11
Views
498
Recursive
Recursive
J
Is Rise and Rule better than Rhye's of Civilization?
Replies
4
Views
719
need my speed
need my speed
Top Bottom