Suggestions and Requests

[voigt]

I've add csv/spreadsheets map data in the project. It's not used atm, the game is still using the map data in python files, I will make the switch when the new map will be added in the main branch.
Data can be found in the repo here.
I've also added the spreadsheets in google sheets, it will simplify the process.

• War map
• Settlers map
• Cities name map
• Region map

2 last things:

• I've planned to rename the province map to "region map" I guess this is the right occasion to make the switch
• we should maybe create a new thread in this sub, something like "(RFC3E) Extended east map"

If you want the access right for editing the spreadsheets, send me your mail in dm.
Thanks!

EDIT: The cities map is utf8 with html entities, for instance it's Athènes for Athènes in France sheet.

 

[Csquared08]

That's why I'd like to improve the beginning of the map with additional civs. Apart from Lombardy (as in RFCE++), I don't have any specific civs in mind.

I have a few ideas for your consideration:

1. Visigothic Spain/Kingdom of Asturias
They would exist from the get go as a reasonably well-established kingdom throughout Spain (minus the Suebic kingdom in the northwest). There's potential for some interesting early game events with the French as Clovis kicked the Visigoths out of southern Gaul at the beginning of the 6th century. For UHV ideas, there's the conquest of the Suebi, the Visigothic law codes, and a cool ahistorical goal of surviving Muslim expansion as a starting point. You could also/instead play into the survival of the Visigothic kingdom as the Kingdom of Asturias. Maybe you could even do something like reconquering the lands Clovis and the Franks took from you. Maybe you could make an Ostrogothic goal and retake Italy. There are some neat options for the Goths, I think.
2. Anglo-Saxon England
They're another nation that would exist from the get go, but since it's so early in their settled history, I think it's fair to justify them as having only one starting city as opposed to the Visigoths, who would start with several just like the Byzantines. For UHVs, I think there are some pretty obvious options here in first acquiring the lands of Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia, and Northumbria; surviving the Viking invasions; and finally repelling William the Conqueror.
3. Avars
Unfortunately, I know a lot less about the Avars than I do the Anglo-Saxons or the Goths, but they would be a good add for Eastern Europe
4. Ostrogoths/Lombards
I'm going to start by saying this should be the Lombards, and I think you even already added the Lombards. They're a good add. However, the Ostrogoths and Theodoric the Great absolutely deserve some representation, even if it's just some independent cities. Theodoric the Great truly earned his name and built a kingdom out of the ashes of the west that came awfully close to just being a continuation of the empire. More independent cities in Italy at the very start to represent Theodoric and the Ostrogoths would be a good add.
5. Vandal North Africa
This is definitely pushing the boundaries as a playable Vandal faction is quite ahistorical since they were gone by 535. However, they do have a couple points going for them that others, like the Ostrogoths or the Suebi, do not. First, they don't really have competition for their historical bounds for quite some time. The Byzantines, Arabs, and Cordobans are going to be hard-pressed to make their way there in time enough to kill them off before they've existed for several hundred years, and later nations like the Moroccans or Sicilians arrive late enough that it wouldn't be an issue. That said, I do believe you said you added a Belisarius conqueror event, but I also believe you said it was focused on Italy? Anyway, this lets them occupy a niche on the map that's largely unoccupied for much of the game, so even if they're an ahistorical add, the gameplay addition is worth considering. If you opt to not include them, a strong, independent Carthage from the get go would be a good representation for the Vandals.
6. Independent Cities
In general, I think the fall of Rome is overexaggerated in terms of overall urban collapse. Yes, things absolutely regressed as central authority broke down. And in some places, like Roman Britain, things absolutely devolved into barbarism rather quickly, and it took time for things to be restored. However, in places like Visigothic Spain, Frankish Gaul, Ostrogothic/Lombard Italy, and Vandal North Africa, old Roman cities continued to serve as administrative centers for these new kingdoms. There is a strong argument for, even if you include none of these options as playable, including many independent cities throughout western Europe to represent these successor barbarian kingdoms. On the other hand, planning out your city placements is one of the cooler features of Civ, so if you put too many independent cities on the map, this can easily get lost in the shuffle. There's a balance somewhere that manages to accomplish both representing the barbarian kingdoms and city settling, but I do not know what it would look like.

 

[HNation]

I've add csv/spreadsheets map data in the project. It's not used atm, the game is still using the map data in python files, I will make the switch when the new map will be added in the main branch.
Data can be found in the repo here.
I've also added the spreadsheets in google sheets, it will simplify the process.

• War map
• Settlers map
• Cities name map
• Region map

2 last things:

• I've planned to rename the province map to "region map" I guess this is the right occasion to make the switch
• we should maybe create a new thread in this sub, something like "(RFC3E) Extended east map"

If you want the access right for editing the spreadsheets, send me your mail in dm.
Thanks!

If you plan to switch to the extended map, I'd suggest switching to the SoI CityNameManager system, where instead of each civ getting their own city name map, there is one city name map and a bunch of renames for individual civs. It would be easier than making sure dozens of different maps match. Already some don't match up on the current map, off the top of my head, French Cologne is German Aachen, even though the French name for Aachen is Aix-la-Chapelle.

 

[gilgames]

I have a few ideas for your consideration:

1. Visigothic Spain/Kingdom of Asturias
They would exist from the get go as a reasonably well-established kingdom throughout Spain (minus the Suebic kingdom in the northwest). There's potential for some interesting early game events with the French as Clovis kicked the Visigoths out of southern Gaul at the beginning of the 6th century. For UHV ideas, there's the conquest of the Suebi, the Visigothic law codes, and a cool ahistorical goal of surviving Muslim expansion as a starting point. You could also/instead play into the survival of the Visigothic kingdom as the Kingdom of Asturias. Maybe you could even do something like reconquering the lands Clovis and the Franks took from you. Maybe you could make an Ostrogothic goal and retake Italy. There are some neat options for the Goths, I think.
2. Anglo-Saxon England
They're another nation that would exist from the get go, but since it's so early in their settled history, I think it's fair to justify them as having only one starting city as opposed to the Visigoths, who would start with several just like the Byzantines. For UHVs, I think there are some pretty obvious options here in first acquiring the lands of Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia, and Northumbria; surviving the Viking invasions; and finally repelling William the Conqueror.
3. Avars
Unfortunately, I know a lot less about the Avars than I do the Anglo-Saxons or the Goths, but they would be a good add for Eastern Europe
4. Ostrogoths/Lombards
I'm going to start by saying this should be the Lombards, and I think you even already added the Lombards. They're a good add. However, the Ostrogoths and Theodoric the Great absolutely deserve some representation, even if it's just some independent cities. Theodoric the Great truly earned his name and built a kingdom out of the ashes of the west that came awfully close to just being a continuation of the empire. More independent cities in Italy at the very start to represent Theodoric and the Ostrogoths would be a good add.
5. Vandal North Africa
This is definitely pushing the boundaries as a playable Vandal faction is quite ahistorical since they were gone by 535. However, they do have a couple points going for them that others, like the Ostrogoths or the Suebi, do not. First, they don't really have competition for their historical bounds for quite some time. The Byzantines, Arabs, and Cordobans are going to be hard-pressed to make their way there in time enough to kill them off before they've existed for several hundred years, and later nations like the Moroccans or Sicilians arrive late enough that it wouldn't be an issue. That said, I do believe you said you added a Belisarius conqueror event, but I also believe you said it was focused on Italy? Anyway, this lets them occupy a niche on the map that's largely unoccupied for much of the game, so even if they're an ahistorical add, the gameplay addition is worth considering. If you opt to not include them, a strong, independent Carthage from the get go would be a good representation for the Vandals.
6. Independent Cities
In general, I think the fall of Rome is overexaggerated in terms of overall urban collapse. Yes, things absolutely regressed as central authority broke down. And in some places, like Roman Britain, things absolutely devolved into barbarism rather quickly, and it took time for things to be restored. However, in places like Visigothic Spain, Frankish Gaul, Ostrogothic/Lombard Italy, and Vandal North Africa, old Roman cities continued to serve as administrative centers for these new kingdoms. There is a strong argument for, even if you include none of these options as playable, including many independent cities throughout western Europe to represent these successor barbarian kingdoms. On the other hand, planning out your city placements is one of the cooler features of Civ, so if you put too many independent cities on the map, this can easily get lost in the shuffle. There's a balance somewhere that manages to accomplish both representing the barbarian kingdoms and city settling, but I do not know what it would look like.

Although I am all for new things! We must be very careful with any additionals.
1, as France you have at most 2 axe to spare for the south region. I would hardly call it an invasion. Early game isn't fit for accurate representation.
2, for that we have to rethink the whole danish/Norse strategy and start.
3, avars might have a place, but they stuff was kinda short term afaik.
4, in rfcs++ I felt it was crammed enoughy idk
5, ahistorical but could be done
6, there are plenty of cities to represent imo.

 

[HNation]

The new civ I'd really be interested in is Ireland with Brian Boru as king...

 

[voigt]

The new civ I'd really be interested in is Ireland with Brian Boru as king...

Ireland would be a nice civ indeed. Any ideas about its birthdate and deathdate?

 

[Csquared08]

Although I am all for new things! We must be very careful with any additionals.
1, as France you have at most 2 axe to spare for the south region. I would hardly call it an invasion. Early game isn't fit for accurate representation.
2, for that we have to rethink the whole danish/Norse strategy and start.
3, avars might have a place, but they stuff was kinda short term afaik.
4, in rfcs++ I felt it was crammed enoughy idk
5, ahistorical but could be done
6, there are plenty of cities to represent imo.

I should clarify that my experience with what exists on the map does not extend to RFCE++ or other similar such mods. If those mods added a bunch of independent cities to western Europe that better represent surviving Roman cities and successor barbarian kingdoms, then that's very cool. As far as I can tell, tho, 1.6.5 does not seem that different from 1.5 in terms of early game city placement.

1. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. In-game, sure, it's a stretch, but it could just be as simple as starting at war with the Franks. If your early game comment is just a continuation of that point, yes, I agree. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean by "not fit for accurate represenation."
2. That's definitely true. Balancing would be tricky, and it might not be worth the effort. However, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms are fairly well-known, so if you're looking for early game civs to exist on the map... It's a tough one, unfortunately.
3. Yeah, they were supplanted by the Magyars/Hungarians fairly quickly in the grand scheme of things, but in terms of what we know about Eastern European cultures from the early game time period, there aren't many options.
4+6. To be clear, my experience is that if I look at the game turn 1, the cities that exist are Rome and the Byzantine cities. Independent cities start popping up over the next couple turns, and this is nice for variety since it isn't always the same cities. My suggestion is more that they should spawn with decent pop and pre-built buildings to represent their long-term existence. They also definitely should be Christian; the Vandals and all flavors of Goths were Christian by the time they established independent kingdoms, even if it was the Arian flavor. If that's already there, very cool. As is, in 1.6.5, they spawn with 1-2 pop, maybe a granary, and frequently no religion.

 

[manio curio]

I have a few ideas for your consideration:

1. Visigothic Spain/Kingdom of Asturias
They would exist from the get go as a reasonably well-established kingdom throughout Spain (minus the Suebic kingdom in the northwest). There's potential for some interesting early game events with the French as Clovis kicked the Visigoths out of southern Gaul at the beginning of the 6th century. For UHV ideas, there's the conquest of the Suebi, the Visigothic law codes, and a cool ahistorical goal of surviving Muslim expansion as a starting point. You could also/instead play into the survival of the Visigothic kingdom as the Kingdom of Asturias. Maybe you could even do something like reconquering the lands Clovis and the Franks took from you. Maybe you could make an Ostrogothic goal and retake Italy. There are some neat options for the Goths, I think.
2. Anglo-Saxon England
They're another nation that would exist from the get go, but since it's so early in their settled history, I think it's fair to justify them as having only one starting city as opposed to the Visigoths, who would start with several just like the Byzantines. For UHVs, I think there are some pretty obvious options here in first acquiring the lands of Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia, and Northumbria; surviving the Viking invasions; and finally repelling William the Conqueror.
3. Avars
Unfortunately, I know a lot less about the Avars than I do the Anglo-Saxons or the Goths, but they would be a good add for Eastern Europe
4. Ostrogoths/Lombards
I'm going to start by saying this should be the Lombards, and I think you even already added the Lombards. They're a good add. However, the Ostrogoths and Theodoric the Great absolutely deserve some representation, even if it's just some independent cities. Theodoric the Great truly earned his name and built a kingdom out of the ashes of the west that came awfully close to just being a continuation of the empire. More independent cities in Italy at the very start to represent Theodoric and the Ostrogoths would be a good add.
5. Vandal North Africa
This is definitely pushing the boundaries as a playable Vandal faction is quite ahistorical since they were gone by 535. However, they do have a couple points going for them that others, like the Ostrogoths or the Suebi, do not. First, they don't really have competition for their historical bounds for quite some time. The Byzantines, Arabs, and Cordobans are going to be hard-pressed to make their way there in time enough to kill them off before they've existed for several hundred years, and later nations like the Moroccans or Sicilians arrive late enough that it wouldn't be an issue. That said, I do believe you said you added a Belisarius conqueror event, but I also believe you said it was focused on Italy? Anyway, this lets them occupy a niche on the map that's largely unoccupied for much of the game, so even if they're an ahistorical add, the gameplay addition is worth considering. If you opt to not include them, a strong, independent Carthage from the get go would be a good representation for the Vandals.
6. Independent Cities
In general, I think the fall of Rome is overexaggerated in terms of overall urban collapse. Yes, things absolutely regressed as central authority broke down. And in some places, like Roman Britain, things absolutely devolved into barbarism rather quickly, and it took time for things to be restored. However, in places like Visigothic Spain, Frankish Gaul, Ostrogothic/Lombard Italy, and Vandal North Africa, old Roman cities continued to serve as administrative centers for these new kingdoms. There is a strong argument for, even if you include none of these options as playable, including many independent cities throughout western Europe to represent these successor barbarian kingdoms. On the other hand, planning out your city placements is one of the cooler features of Civ, so if you put too many independent cities on the map, this can easily get lost in the shuffle. There's a balance somewhere that manages to accomplish both representing the barbarian kingdoms and city settling, but I do not know what it would look like.

I feel like what you suggest can be implemented best by having Spain start as the Visigoths and then change their name. England start as Saxons could be done but then no way Normandy could flip to them in 1066. In general adding more independent cities at the beginning has its own historical logic, but I sense it may require more modifications down the road because all civs would now would have more population, resources, etc... My feeling is some choices in RFCE design were made to make the game 'more playable' vs being more historical accurate and a compromise between the two always needs to be stricken.

 

[gilgames]

I should clarify that my experience with what exists on the map does not extend to RFCE++ or other similar such mods. If those mods added a bunch of independent cities to western Europe that better represent surviving Roman cities and successor barbarian kingdoms, then that's very cool. As far as I can tell, tho, 1.6.5 does not seem that different from 1.5 in terms of early game city placement.

1. I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. In-game, sure, it's a stretch, but it could just be as simple as starting at war with the Franks. If your early game comment is just a continuation of that point, yes, I agree. Otherwise, I don't know what you mean by "not fit for accurate represenation."
2. That's definitely true. Balancing would be tricky, and it might not be worth the effort. However, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms are fairly well-known, so if you're looking for early game civs to exist on the map... It's a tough one, unfortunately.
3. Yeah, they were supplanted by the Magyars/Hungarians fairly quickly in the grand scheme of things, but in terms of what we know about Eastern European cultures from the early game time period, there aren't many options.
4+6. To be clear, my experience is that if I look at the game turn 1, the cities that exist are Rome and the Byzantine cities. Independent cities start popping up over the next couple turns, and this is nice for variety since it isn't always the same cities. My suggestion is more that they should spawn with decent pop and pre-built buildings to represent their long-term existence. They also definitely should be Christian; the Vandals and all flavors of Goths were Christian by the time they established independent kingdoms, even if it was the Arian flavor. If that's already there, very cool. As is, in 1.6.5, they spawn with 1-2 pop, maybe a granary, and frequently no religion.

Dont forget that game mechanics existing and for a reason. If you hard code to all be catholic then the replayablity suffers.
Trust the previous devs, that they thought trough it all and implemented everything on the very thin line of historical and gameplay line. Yes, there is always room to new ideas, but it should be carefully tailored.
about 1, The abbasids conquered north africa in a few decades, these things are very hard to represent in early game, due to stability and poor city ratings. Also army size and their gold cost is problematic. And all that should be balanced with all the late game stuff. Compromises had to be made.

 

[Baron03]

I've add csv/spreadsheets map data in the project. It's not used atm, the game is still using the map data in python files, I will make the switch when the new map will be added in the main branch.
Data can be found in the repo here.
I've also added the spreadsheets in google sheets, it will simplify the process.

• War map
• Settlers map
• Cities name map
• Region map

2 last things:

• I've planned to rename the province map to "region map" I guess this is the right occasion to make the switch
• we should maybe create a new thread in this sub, something like "(RFC3E) Extended east map"

If you want the access right for editing the spreadsheets, send me your mail in dm.
Thanks!

EDIT: The cities map is utf8 with html entities, for instance it's Athènes for Athènes in France sheet.

Attached is my finalized map. Included roads to Mesopotamia, adjusted resources and terrain a tiny bit a final time.

Ottoman, Arab, and Russian war maps and settler maps are done. The rest can be copied over with 0 values, and 20 values respectively (I did this already with France for at least one).

The only city map I’ve done is Russia’s, but would still need to be edited.

Region map is done with the following provinces added, and one province will need to be renamed. Vologda and kuban were extended into the newer portions of the map as well. New province named Penza was extended into the current map where necessary as well.

Spoiler :

150 lower mesopotamia
151 persia
152 upper mesopotamia
153 azerbaijan
154 shirvan
155 greater armenia
156 georgia
157 Terek/North Caucasus
158 astrakhan
159 Trans Caspia/Uralsk
160 saratov
161 Bashkiria
162 Perm
163 Vyatka
164 Kazan
165 Samara
166 Simbirsk2 (true Simbirsk)
167 Penza

The current “Simbirsk” province number 139 needs to be renamed to Tambov.

 

[Csquared08]

I feel like what you suggest can be implemented best by having Spain start as the Visigoths and then change their name. England start as Saxons could be done but then no way Normandy could flip to them in 1066. In general adding more independent cities at the beginning has its own historical logic, but I sense it may require more modifications down the road because all civs would now would have more population, resources, etc... My feeling is some choices in RFCE design were made to make the game 'more playable' vs being more historical accurate and a compromise between the two always needs to be stricken.

Spain starting as the Visigoths and name-changing would be pretty sweet, especially since the Visigothic kingdom survived as the Kingdom of Asturias which itself went on to become the Kingdom of Leon. That's a pretty cool solution. The only issue, as I see it, is UHVs might get a little wonky with the longer timeline, but that's probably not the biggest deal. For the Saxons, would there not be a way to add an in-game event that would flip Normandy?


As for the Independent City question, it's definitely tricky. Spain existing from the start as the Visigoths would fill in the part of the beginning map that needs filling in the most, so that would do it in terms of adding new cities to the map. I think that's the most glaring empty spot on the map since the French will quite quickly fill in the empty bits in France. However, I think those cities should absolutely spawn with more stuff. I'm not saying anything major; most of the cities should be 2-3 pop with a couple buildings instead of 1-2 pop with no buildings. Carthage is the outlier here and should be larger. There's no reason Cyrene, for instance, should be larger and have more stuff than Mediolanum and Carthage. As for balancing, this will balance out to not be much of an advantage for the player. First, independent cities are not very good at developing their land and don't build much stuff, especially compared to actual civs. Second, conquering cities shrinks the pop and destroys several buildings. All that extra starting stuff won't really be there to give the player extra advantages. And third, most of these cities don't flip to the player for a long time. Genoa doesn't spawn for several hundred years, so Mediolanum/Milan spawning with an extra pop and a couple more buildings won't really impact a Genoan player, especially if Germany or France conquers it early. This is all to say that it's really weird for all the Byzantine cities to start with a bunch of stuff while the independent cities in the west start largely with nothing. It's a weird disconnect that doesn't make sense to me from either a gameplay or historical perspective.

Dont forget that game mechanics existing and for a reason. If you hard code to all be catholic then the replayablity suffers.
Trust the previous devs, that they thought trough it all and implemented everything on the very thin line of historical and gameplay line. Yes, there is always room to new ideas, but it should be carefully tailored.
about 1, The abbasids conquered north africa in a few decades, these things are very hard to represent in early game, due to stability and poor city ratings. Also army size and their gold cost is problematic. And all that should be balanced with all the late game stuff. Compromises had to be made.

I want to preface this by saying that I think this mod does a great job of representing Medieval Europe throughout history. However, that does not mean things can not and did not fall through the cracks. The couple hundred years after Rome fell are frequently overlooked as a period of sharp decline and barbarism. It's easy to not give the period much thought or consideration. It is objectively wrong for cities in the west to not be Christian and to be building pagan temples. The Vandals and the Goths had been Christian for decades. What replayability are you talking about that would suffer from all these cities spawning correctly as Catholic? Again, the original devs did a great job creating a sick mod. Blindly trusting that they got everything right is not how you continue to improve. This is something they overlooked, and that's what this thread is for: finding things that were overlooked.


I also still have no idea what your points about the Franks kicking the Visigoths out of southern Gaul are supposed to about. Do you think I'm suggesting that the Visigoths should also spawn with their possessions in southern Gaul and that the Franks should get a conqueror's event to kick them out? I am absolutely not suggesting that; that would be insane. I'm just saying that there's a lot of historical animosity between Visigoths and Franks, so them starting at war with each other would make a lot of sense. There are ways beyond spawning an army to represent historical animosity.

 

[manio curio]

Spain starting as the Visigoths and name-changing would be pretty sweet, especially since the Visigothic kingdom survived as the Kingdom of Asturias which itself went on to become the Kingdom of Leon. That's a pretty cool solution. The only issue, as I see it, is UHVs might get a little wonky with the longer timeline, but that's probably not the biggest deal. For the Saxons, would there not be a way to add an in-game event that would flip Normandy?


As for the Independent City question, it's definitely tricky. Spain existing from the start as the Visigoths would fill in the part of the beginning map that needs filling in the most, so that would do it in terms of adding new cities to the map. I think that's the most glaring empty spot on the map since the French will quite quickly fill in the empty bits in France. However, I think those cities should absolutely spawn with more stuff. I'm not saying anything major; most of the cities should be 2-3 pop with a couple buildings instead of 1-2 pop with no buildings. Carthage is the outlier here and should be larger. There's no reason Cyrene, for instance, should be larger and have more stuff than Mediolanum and Carthage. As for balancing, this will balance out to not be much of an advantage for the player. First, independent cities are not very good at developing their land and don't build much stuff, especially compared to actual civs. Second, conquering cities shrinks the pop and destroys several buildings. All that extra starting stuff won't really be there to give the player extra advantages. And third, most of these cities don't flip to the player for a long time. Genoa doesn't spawn for several hundred years, so Mediolanum/Milan spawning with an extra pop and a couple more buildings won't really impact a Genoan player, especially if Germany or France conquers it early. This is all to say that it's really weird for all the Byzantine cities to start with a bunch of stuff while the independent cities in the west start largely with nothing. It's a weird disconnect that doesn't make sense to me from either a gameplay or historical perspective.



I want to preface this by saying that I think this mod does a great job of representing Medieval Europe throughout history. However, that does not mean things can not and did not fall through the cracks. The couple hundred years after Rome fell are frequently overlooked as a period of sharp decline and barbarism. It's easy to not give the period much thought or consideration. It is objectively wrong for cities in the west to not be Christian and to be building pagan temples. The Vandals and the Goths had been Christian for decades. What replayability are you talking about that would suffer from all these cities spawning correctly as Catholic? Again, the original devs did a great job creating a sick mod. Blindly trusting that they got everything right is not how you continue to improve. This is something they overlooked, and that's what this thread is for: finding things that were overlooked.


I also still have no idea what your points about the Franks kicking the Visigoths out of southern Gaul are supposed to about. Do you think I'm suggesting that the Visigoths should also spawn with their possessions in southern Gaul and that the Franks should get a conqueror's event to kick them out? I am absolutely not suggesting that; that would be insane. I'm just saying that there's a lot of historical animosity between Visigoths and Franks, so them starting at war with each other would make a lot of sense. There are ways beyond spawning an army to represent historical animosity.

you are making a good point about the independent cities in the sense it may be possible to just have tiny cities with little to no buildings and have the tiles almost completely unworked, maybe keeping just the roads. That would probably not change the dynamics by much

 

[gilgames]

Spain starting as the Visigoths and name-changing would be pretty sweet, especially since the Visigothic kingdom survived as the Kingdom of Asturias which itself went on to become the Kingdom of Leon. That's a pretty cool solution. The only issue, as I see it, is UHVs might get a little wonky with the longer timeline, but that's probably not the biggest deal. For the Saxons, would there not be a way to add an in-game event that would flip Normandy?


As for the Independent City question, it's definitely tricky. Spain existing from the start as the Visigoths would fill in the part of the beginning map that needs filling in the most, so that would do it in terms of adding new cities to the map. I think that's the most glaring empty spot on the map since the French will quite quickly fill in the empty bits in France. However, I think those cities should absolutely spawn with more stuff. I'm not saying anything major; most of the cities should be 2-3 pop with a couple buildings instead of 1-2 pop with no buildings. Carthage is the outlier here and should be larger. There's no reason Cyrene, for instance, should be larger and have more stuff than Mediolanum and Carthage. As for balancing, this will balance out to not be much of an advantage for the player. First, independent cities are not very good at developing their land and don't build much stuff, especially compared to actual civs. Second, conquering cities shrinks the pop and destroys several buildings. All that extra starting stuff won't really be there to give the player extra advantages. And third, most of these cities don't flip to the player for a long time. Genoa doesn't spawn for several hundred years, so Mediolanum/Milan spawning with an extra pop and a couple more buildings won't really impact a Genoan player, especially if Germany or France conquers it early. This is all to say that it's really weird for all the Byzantine cities to start with a bunch of stuff while the independent cities in the west start largely with nothing. It's a weird disconnect that doesn't make sense to me from either a gameplay or historical perspective.



I want to preface this by saying that I think this mod does a great job of representing Medieval Europe throughout history. However, that does not mean things can not and did not fall through the cracks. The couple hundred years after Rome fell are frequently overlooked as a period of sharp decline and barbarism. It's easy to not give the period much thought or consideration. It is objectively wrong for cities in the west to not be Christian and to be building pagan temples. The Vandals and the Goths had been Christian for decades. What replayability are you talking about that would suffer from all these cities spawning correctly as Catholic? Again, the original devs did a great job creating a sick mod. Blindly trusting that they got everything right is not how you continue to improve. This is something they overlooked, and that's what this thread is for: finding things that were overlooked.


I also still have no idea what your points about the Franks kicking the Visigoths out of southern Gaul are supposed to about. Do you think I'm suggesting that the Visigoths should also spawn with their possessions in southern Gaul and that the Franks should get a conqueror's event to kick them out? I am absolutely not suggesting that; that would be insane. I'm just saying that there's a lot of historical animosity between Visigoths and Franks, so them starting at war with each other would make a lot of sense. There are ways beyond spawning an army to represent historical animosity.

I hoped I was clear on my intentions, but once again: My main point is, that we should be very careful making changes because so many things are connected. It doesn't mean I am against changes. Adding more conquest to the early game (before 800ish) is very challenging. The battle of Poitiers (722) is impossible to represent, no Muslims there to begin with. France at war with the visigoths is absolutely fine.
By replayability, I mean sometimes you get a weird religion in some unexpected places, and that's good. Preset religion would take away from that a little bit. Indi cities could have a bit more to spawn with, but that needs a thorough testing.