The Asiatic Khanates

[Lennon789]

The Pontic Steppe and Southwestern Russia are regions that are often settled poorly by the AI. To both resolve this issue and add more historical flavor to the mod, I propose the inclusion of a few Asiatic Khanates. Single-city political entities such as the Khanate of Astrakhan or the Khanate of Crimea would be represented by independent cities that spawn in historically appropriate years. What follows are some thoughts I've had on the matter:

Xacitarxan spawns in 1330 at tile (50,77), and is renamed Astrakhan when conquered by the Russians.

Qirim spawns in 1240 at tile (48, 72), and is renamed Bagchasaray if conquered by Mongols.

Sibir spawns in 1490 at (58, 85), and is renamed Tobol'sk when conquered by the Russians.

By having some of these cities already present on the map, we can more accurately illustrate the combination of conquest and colonization by which the Russians expanded, as opposed to the colonization of uninhabited wilderness which the game currently depicts.

 

[Pavel Chichikov]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=473270

 

[Lennon789]

I actually remember reading this thread a few months ago, and I encountered some pretty interesting ideas there, but unfortunately it was never followed up on. Consider my thread to be a bump of sorts, if you will.

Having said that, and taking into account the changes that this modmod has undergone since August 22, 2012, here are my thoughts:

1) I generally agree with the "civs not polities" mantra, except in the rare cases where it is necessary (i.e. I'm on board with the HRE-Prussia split). So to adequately represent these two phases of Russian history, I suggest that the Russians spawn in Kiev on the same turn the city currently spawns in the 600 AD scenario, with the dynamic name of Kievan Rus' when their capital is Kiev. They can move their capital to Moscow whenever they so choose. If they are destroyed by the Mongols, the Russians would respawn with Moscow as their capital.

2) As I understand it, the scripted independent city spawns will not occur if the tile said city would spawn on is adjacent to another city or occupied by a pre-existing civilization's culture. If this is indeed the case, then I think definitely Astrakhan and possibly Crimea and Sibir should be included as indy cities which will serve as targets for Russian conquests. In this case, the first Russian UHV would be modified to "Acquire 7 cities in Siberia by 1700."

 

[Pavel Chichikov]

Well I still think the Rus' city-states era & post Tartar-occupation Russiya are so radically different as to merit separate Civs, but at least we're agreed that there's a major area we'd like to have filled out.
I prefer having Novgorod as rich, militarily weak state to allow for a Russian game beginning with freeing off the Tartar yoke, after in history the Mongols reached as far as Poland.

 

[Mef]

I think the Russians should spawn in 1478 with Moscow and Novgorod.

That would leave room for an earlier Rus civ, but I don't think they achieved enough to be a true civilization.
So what would be just as historical is having Kiev, Novgorod, Moscow, maybe even Minsk/Vilnius and a couple of important cities in the steppes spawn at appropriate times as neutral cities which are potential targets for Poland or the Mongols.

Russia's job would then basically be to mop up all those Eastern European/Russian cities, colonize Siberia and become a superpower in the late game.

 

[Lennon789]

I think the Russians should spawn in 1478 with Moscow and Novgorod.

That would leave room for an earlier Rus civ, but I don't think they achieved enough to be a true civilization.
So what would be just as historical is having Kiev, Novgorod, Moscow, maybe even Minsk/Vilnius and a couple of important cities in the steppes spawn at appropriate times as neutral cities which are potential targets for Poland or the Mongols.

Russia's job would then basically be to mop up all those Eastern European/Russian cities, colonize Siberia and become a superpower in the late game.

I like this idea a lot. The problem with Russia getting Novgorod is that Novgorod and Saint Petersburg are adjacent to each other on the map, at least in their geographically accurate positions at (56,69) and (57,78) respectively. This is why I make the following radical suggestion:

Give Russia the ability to raze its own cities. I envision this as a UP, it could either supplement or replace General Winter. The historical basis for this suggestion is the Massacre of Novgorod and the burning of lands as the Russian army retreated from Napoleon. The gameplay justification for this suggestion is that it would allow Russia to construct St. Petersburg after burning Novgorod to the ground.

 

[Mef]

You can just put Novgorod on the St.Peterburg tile and then change the name in 1703.
The cities aren't that far apart and Novgorod was important for trade through the Baltic Sea so it makes sense.

 

[Lennon789]

That honestly hadn't occurred to me, and is a much more feasible idea. I would suggest that Novgorod be renamed to Sankt-Peterburg if/when a palace is built in the city, or in 1703 if the capital stays in Moscow.

 

[Mef]

I made a map of how that could look like.
I added Königsberg (neutral Tuwangste, Polish Królewiec) because I think Prussia should start in 1525 with Königsberg. That would be a more challenging game than to take over all of Germany immediately.
Kazan (should be Bolgar first), Moscow, Cherson, Sarai and Kiev would all be targets for the Mongolians, while Königsberg and Kiev should be Polish when Russia spawns.

The biggest problem in terms of city placement are actually Sarai(Volgograd) and Astrakhan who are just too close together and in a bad area of the map...

 

[Lennon789]

I think that Chersonesos should be moved 1E+1N in order to work the tiles 3S and 3S+1W of Moskva. I think Sarai should be moved 1E. Unfortunately, we can't have both this city and Astrakhan; only Sarai is in the position to work the iron SE of Moskva. The city you've labeled Konigsberg is actually Memel (for the Germans), or Klaipeda (for the Polish and Russians).

 

[blizzrd]

I think that Chersonesos should be moved 1E+1N in order to work the tiles 3S and 3S+1W of Moskva. I think Sarai should be moved 1E. Unfortunately, we can't have both this city and Astrakhan; only Sarai is in the position to work the iron SE of Moskva.

Neater solution is to not found Moscow at all but rather found 2S + 1E. Super-city location here gets the Wheat and the Iron and all those lovely hills.

 

[Mef]

I think that Chersonesos should be moved 1E+1N in order to work the tiles 3S and 3S+1W of Moskva. I think Sarai should be moved 1E. Unfortunately, we can't have both this city and Astrakhan; only Sarai is in the position to work the iron SE of Moskva. The city you've labeled Konigsberg is actually Memel (for the Germans), or Klaipeda (for the Polish and Russians).

Then it would be Rostov-on-Don, not Chersonesos. Having that Crimean city would enable it to be an UHV target for the Italians, but of course the map would have to be changed (i.e. add at least 1 food resource and 1 horses).

Why move Sarai? That position is exactly where it was located, it's also the position of Volgograd/Stalingrad, an important Russian city, and it gets a lot of resources.

I chose that position for Königsberg because it's the furthest from Krakow and it's right in the middle of Prussia.

Neater solution is to not found Moscow at all but rather found 2S + 1E. Super-city location here gets the Wheat and the Iron and all those lovely hills.

That would be Tambov or Voronezh but these cities are clearly less important than Moscow and we're not talking about founding anyway but about creating a historical situation on the map.

 

[srpt]

about Moscow, it should be 1 tile north and it should be a good enough site that players are not tempted to found elsewhere for a better city, especially considering the UHV.

I agree that the nearer steppes should have indy cities.

 

[blizzrd]

That would be Tambov or Voronezh but these cities are clearly less important than Moscow and we're not talking about founding anyway but about creating a historical situation on the map.

Voronezh it is. Agree about historical importance, but with the current location of bonus resources (particularly the Wheat and Iron) it is a much better city location than Moscow.

 

[Mef]

about Moscow, it should be 1 tile north and it should be a good enough site that players are not tempted to found elsewhere for a better city, especially considering the UHV.

But players wouldn't have the choice to found the city, since it would exist as a neutral city from 1147 on and then flip at the Russian start.

Voronezh it is. Agree about historical importance, but with the current location of bonus resources (particularly the Wheat and Iron) it is a much better city location than Moscow.

But you would already have Sarai reaching the wheat and iron and placing historical cities isn't really about getting the best city spot anyway.

 

[Hippo8085]

Let Russia be settles how AI/player wants it to be settled. There is enough variation in reasonable settling patterns that it should not be the same every time.

 

[blizzrd]

Let Russia be settles how AI/player wants it to be settled. There is enough variation in reasonable settling patterns that it should not be the same every time.

+1

 

[Mef]

Let Russia be settles how AI/player wants it to be settled. There is enough variation in reasonable settling patterns that it should not be the same every time.

Why not have Russia both take cities from the Khanates/Poland AND settle new cities towards the East.
That's the most historical option.

 

[ius_iurandi]

Spoiler :

But you would already have Sarai reaching the wheat and iron and placing historical cities isn't really about getting the best city spot anyway.

This is my biggest pet peeve on all RFC mods (which I love and play religiously, so don't take this the wrong way, internet.) Historical City locations should be the best city spots. There's a reason why some villages grew into metropolises, after all, and most of the poorly-located ones have been evolutioned out of history. (Here's looking at you, Parsa vs. Shiraz)

If you guys manage to figure out where the cities should go, petition for some re-arranged resources around them. It's totally understandable and forgivable that the resources would be a little off in the first place, but the fact that they are where they are is no reason not to reshuffle them now.

My biggest constant historicity v. playability struggle is with Konigsberg/Kaliningrad or Memel/Klaipeda. It's worse in RFCE, where wharfs are a must-have, but even on RFCOC, with just the health boost and levees, I find city-on-a-river to be worth roughly a resource itself. But what really kills me is that, in fact, both historical cities should be on rivers in the first place! (little, one-tile ones if nothing else.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kaliningradskiy_cathedral_rear.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Bridges_of_Königsberg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaipėda

(Also, does anyone else build London & Madrid 1 tile S? I know, I'm a bad person.)

 

[Pavel Chichikov]

Not really imo.
Many cities like Castille for example weren't even self-sufficient in food, they became population centres for political reasons.
Of course we can't replicate imports in this manner in CivIV, at least not that I know of. I would be cool to play as British and have London harvest food tiles on the other side of the world at a penalty. Perhaps it could be a Capital only thing... akh, what am I saying.

I like this idea a lot. The problem with Russia getting Novgorod is that Novgorod and Saint Petersburg are adjacent to each other on the map, at least in their geographically accurate positions at (56,69) and (57,78) respectively. This is why I make the following radical suggestion:

Give Russia the ability to raze its own cities. I envision this as a UP, it could either supplement or replace General Winter. The historical basis for this suggestion is the Massacre of Novgorod and the burning of lands as the Russian army retreated from Napoleon. The gameplay justification for this suggestion is that it would allow Russia to construct St. Petersburg after burning Novgorod to the ground.

I get your idea, but having the "power" to raze your own cities sounds well... a bit funny.
More simply, a later spawned Russia would simply raze independent Novgorod rather than flipping it. Also, though your suggestion makes sense, the current stability mechanics make this unusable.
Stability mechanics should have that liberating or razing your Cities cause no penalty.

edit: Founding 1s of London actually makes so much gameplay sense...