Suggestions and Requests

[Baron03]

Maybe this suggestion goes into a complete different direction than Absinthe wants the mod to go but here is my idea, anyway:
I would like to have more variety in tile improvements in the form of "empty" pastures, camping huts and plantations. Pastures and plantations would give +1 und camping huts would give +1 (+2 next to a river).
My idea is that you could build pasture on hills when you don't want a mine and can't build windmills yet.
Plantations could only be built on Palm Forests and maybe could even spawn plantation ressources like mines do with metals/gems. They would obviously have a great synergy with my suggestion of slavery over at the civics thread.
Camping huts would be an option for your Woodland and Dense Forests if you can't chop or lumbermill them, yet.

I like the suggestion, and it reminds me of the plantation terrain improvement in civ4 colonization, or even the "orchard" improvement in SOI. So it would basically function as a little better than a cottage, but limited because of no growth. I'm assuming it would be +1 commerce since a farm already does the +1 food already. This would work well with a "Slavery" civic option. (Say +1 production or commerce with slavery).

I'm not sure about camping huts though. Maybe it's just the sound "camping hut." Either way I like the idea of adding plantations and changing up things.

 

[The Turk]

Gardens of Al-Andalus need to be locked to Muslim state religion civs.

Also more requirements, other than just religion, should be attached to wonders now. There are many more of them now, and there should be a more even distribution. Specifically thinking of the Catholic Wonders here.

 

[The Turk]

Another point to be made: How are the Ottomans supposed to be played? I took my army, tried to conquer the Balkans, only "green" stable areas, and my empire collapsed by 1404... Except I have to keep conquering (like any good expansionist Empire), so I can gain loot, to pay down my massive expenses which I have from starting with such a large army. I'm confused how they are meant to be played otherwise.

The stability mechanics in this mod are still completely whack. They punish you for expanding historically - and in historical timing.

I might suggest therefore that some "major" civs, should get unique civics to counteract this & other intractable issues. Currently the Civics make no sense for the majority of civs anyway.

PS. Why does Qayrawan (Karioun - Please conform to modern transliteration of Arabic, using Q, not K), exist before the Arabs have time to found the city? Spawn the city later, but the Arabia civ player should have the chance to found the city.

 

[The Turk]

I've played maybe 4-5 different games now, and I have yet to see Byzantine control of Anatolia falter before the Ottomans spawn. In fact it is funny to see the Ottomans spawn in Western Anatolia whilst the Byzantines still control the rest. The Ghuzz Turk migrations (represented by barbarians) into Anatolia need to be drummed up considerably. Byzantium should not have control over such tracts of land. You might consider adding a Sultanate of Rum civilisation like in the Sword of Islam mod. Suffice it to say, Anatolia is way too stable, and the same goes for the Arabs as well (a civ, which really should be broken up).

Also, Crimea should have some more interesting resources for Venice/Genoa or whoever to exploit. Its a pretty boring/lack lustre area. Is the Mediterranean slave trade not represented anywhere in this game? Would be good to put some slave resources or something like that in the Crimea. Chios should be made viable as well for Genoa/Venice to take (one of the most lucrative islands in the late Medieval Med.).

 

[Swarbs]

I've played maybe 4-5 different games now, and I have yet to see Byzantine control of Anatolia falter before the Ottomans spawn. In fact it is funny to see the Ottomans spawn in Western Anatolia whilst the Byzantines still control the rest. The Ghuzz Turk migrations (represented by barbarians) into Anatolia need to be drummed up considerably. Byzantium should not have control over such tracts of land. You might consider adding a Sultanate of Rum civilisation like in the Sword of Islam mod. Suffice it to say, Anatolia is way too stable, and the same goes for the Arabs as well (a civ, which really should be broken up).

I agree, and I think Rum is one of the new civs proposed to be added once Absinthe has time to do so?

Although I think the stability of Anatolia is at least partly a result of barb cities flipping back to control of whichever civ lost them after a few turns. Not sure if this works for the AI, but if you get some unlucky RNG with the ERE and lose a city to the Sassanids, a few turns later you get a "The citizens of XXXX are asking to join our empire" and the city flips right back to you. I think that's due to the culture still being 99% ERE at that point.

If that's happening for the AI as well, then AI ERE could be getting decimated by the Sassanids, Seljuks and Mongols, but all cities just flip straight back to them after a few turns. So by the Ottoman spawn they control most of Anatolia again just by virtue of having built up their culture over hundreds of years thus never permanently losing more than a couple of cities. If that's the case, then no number of extra Turk barbs will fix the issue over the long term.

 

[The Turk]

Doesn't SoI get around this issue of city-flipping by having most of them become independent cities? That would make the most sense I think.

 

[DC123456789]

I agree, and I think Rum is one of the new civs proposed to be added once Absinthe has time to do so?

Although I think the stability of Anatolia is at least partly a result of barb cities flipping back to control of whichever civ lost them after a few turns. Not sure if this works for the AI, but if you get some unlucky RNG with the ERE and lose a city to the Sassanids, a few turns later you get a "The citizens of XXXX are asking to join our empire" and the city flips right back to you. I think that's due to the culture still being 99% ERE at that point.

If that's happening for the AI as well, then AI ERE could be getting decimated by the Sassanids, Seljuks and Mongols, but all cities just flip straight back to them after a few turns. So by the Ottoman spawn they control most of Anatolia again just by virtue of having built up their culture over hundreds of years thus never permanently losing more than a couple of cities. If that's the case, then no number of extra Turk barbs will fix the issue over the long term.

Also, there's the fact that barbarians tend to send most of their units to attack the nearest civ, which tends to make their cities rather undefended and easy to retake once the spawns stop, even for the AI. Especially relevant in Anatolia since most to all of them are various cavalry units that are not very good at defending cities.

 

[Genghis Khaiser]

Is there a way to have your own leaderhead changed periodically the same way it happens to the AI?

 

[Swarbs]

Doesn't SoI get around this issue of city-flipping by having most of them become independent cities? That would make the most sense I think.

I'm not sure - don't remember many barb cities going indie in SoI.

I think the main difference is SoI has cultural influence linked to battles. So if barbs win a couple of battles to take over a city, they get a big chunk of its culture which limits the tendency of the city to flip back. Whereas in RFCE the captured city usually has 0-1% barb culture and 99-100% old owner culture so there's a huge chance of a culture flip back.

 

[Baron03]

My observations/ideas for changing Russia's spawn date, flip zone, and the cities present for the northeastern area, because I have been reading a book on Russian history (play testing too!). If the spawn date isn't changed, then I think Beloozero should flip to Moscow. I understand the reasoning for having Russia's spawn at 1380 because the Battle of Kulikovo was very important, but I think it could be moved earlier. There are equally important events that lead up to his battle. Here's a hastily constructed timeline of early Moscow.

Russia's early timeline:

Spoiler :

1272 - Daniil Aleksandrovich becomes the first Grand Prince of Moscow?
1283 - the state itself (Grand Principality of Moscow) is created.
1325 - I think this is when Moscow wins title of "Grand Prince of Vladimir" effectively becoming the most powerful state on the area.
1328 - the metropolitan see moves from Vladimir to Moscow. Ivan I becomes grand prince.
1362 - Dmitri Donskoy becomes grand prince
1368 - Moscow Kremlin wooden walls replaced with limestone.
1380 - the spawn date for Russia, marking the battle of Kulikovo. However, two years later the Mongols sacked Moscow anyway...
1380's - Beloozero becomes part of Moscow.
1389 - the throne is passed from Dmitri Donskoi to Vasily I (Basil I)
1392 - Principality of Murom annexed after Khan's approval.
1478 - Republic of Novgorod annexed.
1482 - Russia's first UHV goal deadline of banishing all Mongols.
1485 - Principality of Tver annexed.

Novgorod is fairly solid by Moscow's spawn with their cramped city placement, and the first UHV goal makes it difficult to conquer them at the same time. I think they need more time to consolidate, unless the first UHV will be changed.

Flip zone: I think Smolensk should be removed from Moscow's flip zone entirely, but the iron tile and the rest eastward should be flipped to leave the remaining tiles open for a settler to found a city if desired. However, I am fine with Yaroslavl flipping regardless of the spawn date.

Moscow didn't gain control of Murom until 1393, and Nizhny Novgorod during Vasily I's reign. But I am hesitant to remove those two spots entirely from the flip zone. Usually when playing as Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod flips with a single crossbowman, so that isn't difficult to conquer. I would imagine Murom being set up similarly, but that does remove space for the player to freely settle as desired. I think this is more accurate, and a good trade off for the earlier spawn date.

These are the overall changes I prefer, but this is my opinion:
1. Move Moscow's spawn to an earlier date; preferably between 1325 and 1331 AD to represent Vladimir being eclipsed by Moscow. That would give up to 18 extra turns to consolidate under the current timeline (27.5 under a new timeline).
2. Reduce Moscow's flip zone so that Smolensk, Nizhny Novgorod, the Tver area, and possibly Murom's location remain independent.
3. Add an independent city spawn of Tver in 1246. This would represent that independent principality, reduce some direct space between Moscow and Novgorod, as well as take some territory from Novgorod to help break up their typical grid pattern of cities.

Optional: add an independent city of Murom in 1127 (between the honey resource and gems resource). I would suggest a very small defensive unit, like a single crossbow unit.
Optional: the city of Vladimir could spawn and become a town improvement before Moscow's spawn. This would be handy for a potential "Golden Horde" civ.
Optional: add an independent city spawn of Ryazan on the SW outer bend of the River. They remained independent from Moscow until 1521, so I believe they will be a decent obstacle/barrier so Moscow doesn't expand south very early.

Independent city spawns

Spoiler :

Vladimir - 1157 (becomes a town improvement prior to Moscow spawn
Tver - 1246-1485
Nizhny Novgorod - 1221-1393*
Murom - 1127-1392
Ryazan - 1155-1521

Miscellaneous observations: Scotland had a catholic missionary unit hanging out in Finland. Not sure how it got there. I also just noticed the feature when you have a settler selected, it shows you the city name of the tile your cursor is hovering over. That's amazing! It really is the simpler things in life...

 

[gilgames]

I agree with most of it.

Turkey need some boost vs the barb spawn at the same time, they try to attack into anatolia. Also they uhv of building wonders are though. Many eu civs are way ahead in techs and they love to build topkapi and other wonders. You really should tie those to Islam. Maybe not to state religion, but to Islam present in the city where you want to build the wonder.

Move Moscow's start as early as possible and adjust novgorods fur uhv (which could use some nerf, to have some error room)
There should be an indie city between smolensk and Moscow, that's a bad place regardless where you put it.
And maybe an ahistorical road down to the bottom, to help players, or exclude the southernmost region. Early expansion is streched anyway.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I agree, and I think Rum is one of the new civs proposed to be added once Absinthe has time to do so?

No, actually it was not.
Since then I have decided to add them too though. Along with Serbia as a 6th civ.
Rum is needed for Byzantium, while Serbia would hopefully be a good check on Hungarian/Bulgarian/Venetian overexpansion on the western Balkans.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Although I think the stability of Anatolia is at least partly a result of barb cities flipping back to control of whichever civ lost them after a few turns. Not sure if this works for the AI, but if you get some unlucky RNG with the ERE and lose a city to the Sassanids, a few turns later you get a "The citizens of XXXX are asking to join our empire" and the city flips right back to you. I think that's due to the culture still being 99% ERE at that point.

If that's happening for the AI as well, then AI ERE could be getting decimated by the Sassanids, Seljuks and Mongols, but all cities just flip straight back to them after a few turns. So by the Ottoman spawn they control most of Anatolia again just by virtue of having built up their culture over hundreds of years thus never permanently losing more than a couple of cities. If that's the case, then no number of extra Turk barbs will fix the issue over the long term.

Yeah, that's exactly whats happening with the barb cities in Anatolia, and this is the primary reason for AI Byzantium being overpowered in most of the games.
And this is an issue I have been trying to fix for a couple times. Byzantium is in a specific place for barb city flips, and not just because of culture. So far I could not figure out why.
With the Sultanate of Rum, this won't be an issue anymore.

 

[The Turk]

No, actually it was not.
Since then I have decided to add them too though. Along with Serbia as a 6th civ.
Rum is needed for Byzantium, while Serbia would hopefully be a good check on Hungarian/Bulgarian/Venetian overexpansion on the western Balkans.

Off the top of your head, if you can, what are the 6 civs you are planning on adding?

 

[Swarbs]

Off the top of your head, if you can, what are the 6 civs you are planning on adding?

Sicily, Tunisia (Hafsid), Crimean Khanate, Egypt (Fatamid IIRC), Rum and Serbia.

 

[The Turk]

What is Sicily representing? There is no independent Kingdom of Sicily in our timeline. Unless you meant the Normans of Apulia/Kingdom of Naples?

 

[SanJose]

Vlad Țepeș and Principality of Wallachia

 

[DC123456789]

What is Sicily representing? There is no independent Kingdom of Sicily in our timeline. Unless you meant the Normans of Apulia/Kingdom of Naples?

IIRC the Normans ruled the independent, united Kingdom of Sicily from 1130 - ~1194 (of course there were the various Norman principalities before that and then the divided kingdoms of Naples and Trinacria falling in and out of personal union with just about everyone after that, which presumably the civ will also cover).

 

[The Turk]

Vlad Țepeș and Principality of Wallachia

Can be represented by independent city-states. In any case, Wallachia was a frontier zone between Hungary and Bulgaria.

IIRC the Normans ruled the independent, united Kingdom of Sicily from 1130 - ~1194 (of course there were the various Norman principalities before that and then the divided kingdoms of Naples and Trinacria falling in and out of personal union with just about everyone after that, which presumably the civ will also cover).

Yes, attached to the Kingdom of Naples or Aragon or the House of Anjou. It never existed as an independent polity! The Normans of Apulia should be represented instead, with the goal of conquering Sicily, and eventually taking Constantinople. Add more city-states, with Byzantine/Lombard units, and have the Normans try to solidify control over Southern Italy. But they should start in Apulia/Bari, not Sicily.

Let Sicily be a battle ground between Muslim Tunisia/Egypt, Naples, Aragon, France and even Genoa. Having a civ start there destroys the potential for interesting outcomes. Sicily should be a possible zone for multiple civs, not a pretend "Sicilian civilization".

 

[DC123456789]

Yes, attached to the Kingdom of Naples or Aragon or the House of Anjou. It never existed as an independent polity! The Normans of Apulia should be represented instead, with the goal of conquering Sicily, and eventually taking Constantinople. Add more city-states, with Byzantine/Lombard units, and have the Normans try to solidify control over Southern Italy. But they should start in Apulia/Bari, not Sicily.

Let Sicily be a battle ground between Muslim Tunisia/Egypt, Naples, Aragon, France and even Genoa. Having a civ start there destroys the potential for interesting outcomes. Sicily should be a possible zone for multiple civs, not a pretend "Sicilian civilization".

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, the Sicilian civ will already primarily represent the Norman Kingdom of Sicily and its predecessors. I think you've gotten the Kingdom of Sicily confused with the Kingdom of Trinacria, of which it was a division of? Remember, both Trinacria and Naples were equally considered a Kingdom of Sicily (which encompassed all of Southern Italy) and so both are encompassed within the civ (though of course only Naples was independent from 1282).