1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

The English (city placement, UP and other questions)

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall: Europe' started by Chep, May 16, 2017.

  1. Chep

    Chep Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,198
    Location:
    Somewhere in Europe
    Hey there,

    I'm having a few issues with England.

    The first thing is:

    How do you place your cities in England?

    The provinces are shaped in a way that makes it somewhat iffy to place cities properly.

    What would be your recommendation? I really have no real idea where I'd settle as most useful spots require razing the cities already present.

    Spoiler :


    The orange spots are those that seem "natural", the red ones are those I'd deem superior, but neither of those really seems like a good idea. Could you help me out?


    The second thing:

    What's the deal with the UP?


    Power of the cottage economy.....gives a bonus when you don't cottage your provinces. What? Considering what the English accomplished up until 1800 AD, shouldn't they have, you know, a useful UP? Or at least one that makes sense?


    I am not saying the English are weak or need buffs or anything, just that I feel like I don't get them, at all. (which doesn't prevent me from accomplishing their UHVs, it just leaves a foul taste in my mouth).

    I hope someone here can help me understand them.
     
  2. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Oh, yeah, there was a lenghty discussion about "Cottage Economy" last year. Can't find it ATM, maybe someone can point you to the thread.
    It's supposed to represent cottage industry, which is probably closest to the workshops ingame (at least that was said about it when the UP was implemented).
    On the other hand it's clearly a very unfortunate name given that there is a cottage improvement in Civ IV.
    It was established that it will be changed/improved somehow, but in the end I couldn't decide what would be the best solution.
    So updating it is definitely on the table. In fact I also plan to update some other UPs for 1.6.

    About city placement: I actually consider 3 distance to be more than enough in the mod between cities.
    Not everywhere, and not in all directions from a given city, but if a couple neighboring cities are in 3 distance is not really a problem, especially if it's needed needed for a better overall city layout.
    IMO if a city has 12-14 tiles from the potential 20 (not counting the city itself) that's usually more than enough. Which gives room to a quite significant overlap.
    Usually health is the limiting factor in city size, and in most cases that can be reached without a full BFC.
    Which is probably fitting for a medieval mod.

    Having said that, I'm more than willing to do a couple resource rearrangements in some regions.
    England is among the harder places for a good city layout, especially if you also want to give better representation to the historically more significant cities.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2017
  3. Chep

    Chep Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,198
    Location:
    Somewhere in Europe
    I agree that having around 14 (I try to get 14-16 usually, slightly more with countries like England that require playing into the lategame) workable tiles is usually enough, at least if those aren't primarily non-coastal water tiles without bonuses or tundra or other low-income tiles. What's usually way way more important is having a river next to the city. For these 2 reasons I am always extremely hesitant to place a city in the province north of London, any city there is without a river, has only medicre water tiles and its land tiles basically overlap with more important cities.

    I think moving the stone resource just 1 tile to the east would allow for some useful city placements (stone is one of the 3 most important resources in the game, so its placement is kinda important).

    Introducing just a 1-tile-river somewhere in Cornwall (I have no idea if that's realistic) would make it easier to find sensible founding spots there. If you move the copper 1 tile to any side then it would actually be a good idea to found a city where this resource currently is. And then another city near the Atlantic Access (for example on the red circle) allowing for 2 decent cities in Cornwall with some overlap but not so much as to ruin one of the cities.

    But the city placement in central Britain still is rough. Ideally I think I'd like to settle one below the orange circle, but since there's no river there...
     
  4. gilgames

    gilgames Priest-King

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    Budapest, Hungary
    I had a lot of issues with the same problem, and found this city placement to sufficiently good.
    It picks up most resource and need the fewest settlers.

    Also their UP was changed from +2:hammers: to +1:hammers: +1:commerce: for workshops
    which you can use in france mainly! The debate about this is long gone, and got nowhere...
    if u ask me it should add +1 or +2:hammers: to towns, and plague do not reduce towns.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. cmakk1012

    cmakk1012 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    70
    Ah, but the issue there is the Wales city, which can also be in a different location and mess up the tiles used. Could the Welsh city always be in the same location to prevent luck-based shenanigans?
     
  6. gilgames

    gilgames Priest-King

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    Budapest, Hungary
    BURN!!!
     
  7. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Yeah, I noticed you love to raze cities :)
     
    gilgames likes this.
  8. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    938
    In general, for England, I rarely if ever place a city in Mercia. It is much easier to simply place Peterborough 1S of the timber and cover Mercia with culture. Peterborough is also a great city for production, with the food from the fish meaning you can work the moor hills and timber.

    If Caernarvon spawns as the barb city in Wales, then it is generally best to keep it and raze Dublin so Caernarvon gets the fish. Also build Bideford in Wessex, as the fish is much more valuable than the colonial access resource.

    If Cardiff spawns as the barb city in Wales, then consider building London one square to the west (if Calais spawns for France). London has enough food with the cow and sheep, and then build Plymouth on the south coast of Wessex.

    Pictures of my set ups attached.
     

    Attached Files:

  9. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    938
    Regarding the UP I also agree it is bizarre to have a bonus for workshops. Not only is England very badly placed to benefit from workshops, due to the amount of hills in England, the cottage economy was entirely around production and commercial activity taking place in people's homes rather than in organised workshops.

    Ergo a bonus to cottages is much more appropriate. I'd say something like +1:hammers: and +1:commerce: to hamlets and upwards. If that bonus isn't OP for farms with serfdom and manorialism, I'd say it isn't OP for hamlets.

    Also the English UB is quite underwhelming imo. Particularly when you compare it to something like the chateau and citadel for France and Spain. I'd rather something that comes earlier and is more distinct than just being a slightly stronger version of the original building.
     
  10. Chep

    Chep Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Messages:
    1,198
    Location:
    Somewhere in Europe
    @gilgames: I like your city placement in that every city is coastal, which feels natural for the UK where place is further than 80km from the nearest coast. But I don't like that some of them aren't next to rivers. and I think it might be somewhat difficult to get the Atlantic Access tiles covered, or not?
    Another thing I dislike is not founding London where it is. It has been such an important city throughout history that I feel it should be represented.

    @Swarbs: This is an interesting placement. Again I kinda dislike not placing London on its starting tile (version2) but this looks decent. In version 1, wouldn't it be better to just cover Ireland with 2 cities?

    @absinthe: well, considering the preplaced cities often collide with more useful settlement positions they have to make way.

    @Swarbs (again)
    I'd say something like +1 hammer to cottage lvl3 and above (I forgot the names of the various iterations) and reduced (or no) shrinking when the plague is present:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death_in_England
    "The English government handled the crisis well, and the country did not experience the extreme reactions that were seen elsewhere in Europe."

    regarding the UB: I think something like adding a bonus promotion for gunpowder units and sea vessels to the drydock could work. This could give the British gunpowder units some "redcoat"-flair without introducing a 2nd UU and emphasize their naval strength in the lategame. I'm thinking something like one of Amphibious/Pinch/some firststrikes for the gunpowder units and maybe Leadership for sea vessels.
     
    gilgames likes this.
  11. Swarbs

    Swarbs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2009
    Messages:
    938
    Actually I would argue that the real life London, or at least the historic centre of London, is geographically closer to the inland tile I have settled in version 2.

    It is 120 miles from the Severn estuary at Bristol, and around 40 miles from the Thames estuary at Southend. Ergo there should be one tile east of London and three tiles west, making version 2 the more historic location for the city.

    If anything the starting tile for the English is in fact where Southend is in real life. I would assume that putting the English there is more a reflection of the fact that most players, if they started one tile inland, would automatically move to the coast before settling to gain the better location.

    You can just cover Ireland with two cities (or even one city) but the city locations I have chosen do have quite good production, which I find is useful when trying to build an army for the 1st UHV. You sometimes have to fight Burgundy for cities in the UHV regions, so you will need a big army to cope with this if they are as powerful as they can get whilst you are busy mauling the French.

    Pumping out trebuchets from three Irish cities whilst England builds knights is often a good bet for a win. And you can always liberate the Irish cities in 1453 if they are dragging you down for science.
     
  12. TheMulattoMaker

    TheMulattoMaker Dictator of RF

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,474
    Location:
    Far-GO!
    Found that thread. Some people were thinking that just having a +1:hammers:for cottage improvements would be too OP, especially with... uhh... whichever civic it is that gives a :hammers: to Towns. I like Swarbs' idea of the English UP being a special improvement that gives production and commerce without taking away food, maybe combine it with a bit of immunity (50% less chance?) from plague-downsizing.

    However... if that's what ends up happening, how would it work when England takes over Irish and French cities? Would it automatically convert the villages/towns that are already there, unique-building style, or does England have to replace them with their unique improvement and start from scratch with English-cottages?

    EDIT for idea: Is it possible to have cottage-type improvements increase production by a percentage instead of adding base hammers (the way a blacksmith does)? Like maybe each village in a city's BFC adds 2% and each town adds 5%. (Or maybe just the tiles that are being worked.) That way if there's an English city that's working 5 towns and 6 villages, their hammers would go up 37%, then if two of those villages grow it'd be up to 43%, etc.

    ...maybe 5% per town is a bit much, but you guys get the idea. Is this something that can be coded? And if so, what do y'all think?
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2017
  13. gilgames

    gilgames Priest-King

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    Budapest, Hungary
    I dont like burn cities, i like cities on the best spot and make exception when it really must.

    @Chep I always looked at this game as "what if" So bot having London is pretty ok. So i can see what would have happened if not the then important cities emerges again but others. Back in those days, many cities rose dou to a King's will. or a decision where to build road/rail, to whom give city privileges ect.So for me its okey to have alternative city placement as mush as possible. And having cities on riverside in England is really a hard nut to crack. :)
     
  14. cmakk1012

    cmakk1012 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    70
    This seems like a relevant thread to ask this question:

    How do you manage English stability while going for UHV 1? You have to conquer and hold down the territory of two civs and stay at Solid to keep them from respawning. I've limited all of the cities' growth to keep them from being angry. I just don't want to have it all fall apart because I have to conquer/raze four terrible Scottish cities. I'm thinking I'm just gonna storm Scotland in 1430 or so and as soon as 1452 rolls around give the cities independence
     
  15. El Bogus

    El Bogus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    369
    Location:
    Leipzig, Germany
    Have you tried conquering the Scottish cities with your starting army (and building a few trebuchets)? And obiously Militarism helps a lot.
     
  16. cmakk1012

    cmakk1012 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    70
    See, I had been thinking the trick was taking out France first since they're the bigger threat. It's better to go after Scotland first, then?

    That definitely makes sense about Militarism
     
  17. El Bogus

    El Bogus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    369
    Location:
    Leipzig, Germany
    In my experience, the AI (on Monarch) has no chance against a well coordinated military assault. So, I would go against the weaker target first and prevent the Scottish to found crap cities.
     
    cmakk1012 likes this.
  18. gilgames

    gilgames Priest-King

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2012
    Messages:
    690
    Location:
    Budapest, Hungary
    Exactly. the sooner france gone the better. After they collapsed ur stability will be fine again. then go for scots. also you can raze a few city. conquer island cities firts!!! due to their UP.
     
  19. cmakk1012

    cmakk1012 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 27, 2012
    Messages:
    70
    I guess I overreacted to all those times the AI France expanded to Poland...as early as you'll be fighting them France won't be that strong
     
  20. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    7,905
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Ahh, thanks for finding the relevant thread!
     

Share This Page