The real stability maps

Again, I think Rhye has a rule about overlapping another player's core area (dark green) with other people's favored territories.

India's core area is yellow for Britain.
 
Indeed, also America's core area is favoured by many civs (England, France, Dutch) on the settler maps.

There is a difference between stability maps and settler maps, which I think may be the confusion here.
 
Of course they aren't the same, but let us stick to the point. You asked: "When did Germany occupy any part of modern France and not collapse?" Answer: "In 1871, the newly unified German empire occupied North-Eastern France, including Paris, and Germany did not collapse". You may quibble over the meaning of the word "occupy" (just how long does an occupation need to last in order to deserve the name?), but, taken literally, your question has a clear answer, e.g. the one I have given above.

Taken literally, with no attention paid whatsoever to the context of this site, forum, or thread, I confess you are correct. Let me say again, when did Germany occupy any part of France (with the exception of the Alsace region) for a prolonged period (i.e. for some length of time that is practical for application in this particular mod of this particular game presently being discussed in this particular message thread) without destabilizing both Europe and Germany itself?

Are we now in agreement?
 
Immigration.
I think China needs some spots along the western American coast then. Chinatowns in Vancouver and San Francisco are pretty big.
I've always wondered which represents Charlemagne's empire better - Germany or France. I'm pretty sure he was a Frank, but since Germany can have the title of HRE...I don't know.
 
I've always wondered which represents Charlemagne's empire better - Germany or France. I'm pretty sure he was a Frank, but since Germany can have the title of HRE...I don't know.

If Charlemagne's Frankish empire hadn't been split amongst his sons upon his death, there is a reasonable case to mount that there wouldn't be a distinction between France and Germany today.
 
If Charlemagne's Frankish empire hadn't been split amongst his sons upon his death, there is a reasonable case to mount that there wouldn't be a distinction between France and Germany today.
And if Alexander didn't split his empire, perhaps the Middle East would simply be one country.
Well, I've always wanted to unite the French-German-Italian area under one empire, as Charlemagne did. It's kind of unhistorical for no civ to be able to do that while being somewhat stable. At least the Greeks can still create Alexander's empire.
I suppose the Carolingian Empire didn't last very long, so I suppose that could be why.
And modern day Mongolia ought to be something other than red for China. The Qing dynasty occupied that area for nearly 300 years.
 
It is to prevent China from settling Mongolia's area...
 
It is to prevent China from settling Mongolia's area...
These are STABILITY maps, not SETTLER maps.
They have absolutely no effect on how likely a civ is to settle an area, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Taken literally, with no attention paid whatsoever to the context of this site, forum, or thread, I confess you are correct. Let me say again, when did Germany occupy any part of France (with the exception of the Alsace region) for a prolonged period (i.e. for some length of time that is practical for application in this particular mod of this particular game presently being discussed in this particular message thread) without destabilizing both Europe and Germany itself?

Are we now in agreement?

Thank you for the precisification. But if you think that your original question, thus reformulated, has an obvious answer (e.g. "never"), then I am afraid we are still not in agreement. For I don't think that this sorts of questions, when asked "within the context of the mod", are as clear-cut as you think they are. For example, how long is a "prolonged period that is practical for application in RFC"? Did the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian war, and its immediate effects, lasted long enough to be significant in RFC terms? Maybe yes, maybe not... who knows? How is RFC going to model something like the German's occupation of France in 1871: war? cultural pressure from Germany? just a turn of anarchy in France? And, most importantly, what exactly is "Germany" in RFC terms? Is it the same as the Holy Roman Empire or not? Consider Charles the Bald, who reigned after Germany's spawn date in RFC: he was both Emperor (a title which carried with it kingship of Germany) and King of West Francia (roughly corresponding to modern-day France). Was Germany(?) "unstable" under Charles the Bald? To cut it short: I just don't see how your reformulated question can receive a clear answer.
 
Looking at the German stability map, it looks like covering the area post-unification (from 19th century).
But Germany spawns much earlier (around 800AD) and it represents the HRE too.
If this view is true (in RFC Germany = HRE+Germany) then the stability map should have some more yellow colour to the west to cover the netherlands and the western part of France.




Hi, let me try to make it clear:

- stability is a sum of many factors, including expansion
- expansion rating is a sum of some factors, including some penalties based on historical bondaries and other civs' core area.
- historical boundaries are described in settlers maps
- settlers maps don't just strictly follow historically occupied areas, but are adapted for gameplay reasons (i.e. i forbid Germany to settle in the Dutch area)
- the maps you see are the result of an elaboration of settlers maps + core areas. No sense in taking them literally i.e. suggesting that plot "x,y should be yellow". Would make more sense if there existed dedicated stability maps, but for practical reasons, they are based on the settlers ones.
 
Rhye, can you clarify if these colors are relevant for specific city sites or cultular influence in general?
To put it in other words, should we be founding cities on individual tiles that have higher stability colors or just in somewhere in that area?
 
And if Alexander didn't split his empire, perhaps the Middle East would simply be one country.
No.
The differences today between French and German people was due pricipally to the split of Charlemagnes empire some 1200 years ago. To compare this situation with the ethnically diverse situation in the Middle East however is profoundly absurd.
 
No.
The differences today between French and German people was due pricipally to the split of Charlemagnes empire some 1200 years ago. To compare this situation with the ethnically diverse situation in the Middle East however is profoundly absurd.
Is it really that ethnically diverse?
And that wasn't the point. The point was that even though we have Babylon, Persia and Egypt, we also have Greece, who is able to conquer those previous mentioned civs without taking a hit to stability.
To me, it seems like it should be the same for either France or Germany, If you want to say it didn't last very long, well, Alexander's empire was just about as long in terms of years, and much shorter in terms of RFC turns.
I'd actually say your argument supports this - Why be able to unite a territory of ethnically diverse people under one empire, but not two areas with somewhat similar ethnicities?
Simply put, there are too many double standards for my liking. I'm sure Rhye has a reason for making these the way they are though.
 
I think Ethiopia should take less of a hit in southern and central Africa. One of the reasons being that their goals are to keep europeans off of there, another being that Ethiopia's area right now is too small, there can only get like three or four cities in their area. Also,

A point in Ethiopian history, they had control of a part of the Middle-east, and should face less instability for settling there(like yellow)
So, I think Ethiopia's area should be expanded just abit.
 
Is it really that ethnically diverse?
Yes. It was in ancient times and it still is today.

And that wasn't the point. The point was that even though we have Babylon, Persia and Egypt, we also have Greece, who is able to conquer those previous mentioned civs without taking a hit to stability.

No. My point was that modern France and Germany originated from the same civilisation, the Franks. If the Frankish empire after Charlemagne hadn't been split amongst his sons, my point was that there is a reasonable case to suggest that today we wouldn't have French and German but rather just one nationality.

You didn't read my post correctly, but that was my point.
 
No. My point was that modern France and Germany originated from the same civilisation, the Franks. If the Frankish empire after Charlemagne hadn't been split amongst his sons, my point was that there is a reasonable case to suggest that today we wouldn't have French and German but rather just one nationality.
I know what you're saying, but I don't exactly get why. My reaction basically is "okay, so?"
I've re-read your post, and I still think it's the same as what I originally thought, though I'll make a different comparison. I think it's more like America and Britain - They were originally together, as one civilization, but then one branched off. I know both the Germans and the French branched off the Franks, so it's slightly different, but I would like a representative of the Carolingian Empire, even if neither France or Germany completely accurately represents it.
 
I know what you're saying, but I don't exactly get why. My reaction basically is "okay, so?"

So -- if the Frankish empire had never split, maybe we wouldn't have ever had a basis for such animated discussion between the pro-German and pro-French over the recent pages of this thread.
 
Top Bottom