Is there any consesnus yet on which new Civs will be added to RFC? I'd just like to present my opinion here:

Carthage: will surely offer an enjoyable game, but Rome will need even more boost if Carthage is added. Also, it will be silly to see Carthage rule Africa til the end of the game, but I guess changing it's name to Algeria later on isn't possible. I support adding it anyway. :goodjob:

Celts: unnecessary. Barbarians, and will only mess things up for Rome and France.

Korea: also unnecessary. The Korean peninsula is way too small for a new Civ, and will confuse things for Japan and China in a really unrealistic way.

Ottomas: definitely needs to be added IMO. At the moment it is always Greece - or rarely Persia - who ends up dominating Turkey til the end of the game. The Ottomans should balance things up. They probably wouldn't usually end up being such a huge nation that they historically were, but if they'll receive lots of troops they'll cause realistic trouble for Persia and Greece, even Egypt and Arabia.

Scandinavia/Vikings: would make the situation in Scandinavia to make at least a little sense. At the moment such nations as Greece, Persia and Rome rush to Scandinavia with Open Borders, or of they won't get Open borders, Germany and England end up fighting for Scandinavia. A Viking state appearing around the same time as England will make things more interesting. And it'll be quite realistic too, they had an important role in Russian and British history. Will also offer an interesting game, perhaps as sort of "the European Mongols", an aggressive nation. :goodjob:

Zululand: unnecessary. Worthless. Won't offer a fun game at all.

I also support adding Babylonia, which I understand is already being done? And while we're at it, I still think the Aztecs and Incas are useless nations and don't offer an interesting game. :mischief:

you guess right - there will be only Ottomans, Vikings, Carthage and possibly Babylon as playable new civs. The others will be minor.

Will these civs and the vassal states (among other Warlords improvements) be only included when the RFC Warlords version is out (in other thread you said it will come out when the final patched version of Warlords was out, which can be 6 months from here...).

:eek:

I guess have to do two separate installs for Rhye's and Warlords.

Vanilla RFC must be close to final before starting working on RFCW.
You see, this time there won't be "basic" and "expanded". I can't predict if it's 2 or 6 months. I will have to deal with real life stuff as well.

put all the warlords unit in, no matter how bad or good they are, but them in so that if you don't like them at all, go to war with them.

But should be not impossible to adapt RFC in august for Warlords ?

Explanation, just add the new civs and wait for feedback

Because if we have 6 new slots of civs, we just add 6 civs ?

Because the only civ i want to see modified is celts for babylonians

Minor civ could be modified barbarian

What do you think ?

If not i will stop to play RFC because i will have Warlords ...

you guess right - there will be only Ottomans, Vikings, Carthage and possibly Babylon as playable new civs. The others will be minor.

Ethiopia!!

Carthage: will surely offer an enjoyable game, but Rome will need even more boost if Carthage is added. Also, it will be silly to see Carthage rule Africa til the end of the game, but I guess changing it's name to Algeria later on isn't possible. I support adding it anyway. :goodjob:
But Carthage hardly did anything except block trade for Rome. Then Rome pwnt them back to teh (sic) Stone Age. :nuke: Carthage was a great trading port, but when Rome re-occupied the area, it was still a great seaport under them.
Scandinavia/Vikings: would make the situation in Scandinavia to make at least a little sense. At the moment such nations as Greece, Persia and Rome rush to Scandinavia with Open Borders, or of they won't get Open borders, Germany and England end up fighting for Scandinavia. A Viking state appearing around the same time as England will make things more interesting. And it'll be quite realistic too, they had an important role in Russian and British history. Will also offer an interesting game, perhaps as sort of "the European Mongols", an aggressive nation. :goodjob:
England should be just starting to develop as IRL, so maybe a bit after. I agree, the Vikings, the Ottomans and Babylon will offer the most changes and realism.
If not i will stop to play RFC because i will have Warlords ...
Agreed. When Warlords comes out, those of us who have it will take a few weeks vacation, to say the least. :D

As for minor civs to be included, I vote the Celts, Carthage, Korea, Zulu, Ethiopia, some Native American tribe (in the plains, not by the lakes like Iroquois), and Maya. Some of these can be represented simply by barbarian tribes/cities, it doesn't matter to me. Whatever makes the most sense for balance.

SilverKnight

OMG! Warlords is due tomorrow!

I guess Babylon will be ready maybe a week or so after the release of Warlords, I just have to compile the files. You see, I won't be able to introduce the XML files before I can modify the Warlords version of the XML.

Please do not hesitate to drop in the 'Mesopotamia' thread and offer any ideas, all suggestions there are welcome ;), right now I have collected some ideas from those who posted, I hope to get more ideas regarding some other stuff there aswell.

Haha, I was wondering when you would show up. Let's show some support for Babylon! With them and the Ottomans, the Middle East will finally be (rightfully) crowded. Just a few more resources would help them sustain large enough armies to use against each other and the (hopefully) invading European civs.

SilverKnight

You could make the celts irish or scottish if their is enough room their.

So when will the mod be compatible with Warlords?
When do I need to have Babylon ready for the mod?

I think the Ottomans will need to begin with a lot of units (strong ones) and dislike of their immediate neighbours if they are going to have any CHANCE of becoming much the real Ottoman Empire.

They will also have to suffer horrible inflation after 1650 or so if they are to expand and then stagnate like the actual Ottomans.

I think the Ottomans will need to begin with a lot of units (strong ones) and dislike of their immediate neighbours if they are going to have any CHANCE of becoming much the real Ottoman Empire.

They will also have to suffer horrible inflation after 1650 or so if they are to expand and then stagnate like the actual Ottomans.

Remember this isnt a historical simulation. The ottomans dont necessarily need to be as powerful as the real ones and they dont need to fade in the 1650's. They should be made powerful enough to make waves but still be balanced and exist as long as they can maintain their empire.

Carthage and Rome could begin in locked war? Also the celts could start in france like 1000 BC (they predate the romans) and then have the French start "on top" of them. So if they aren't destroyed by the romans, they'll have to fight to cling on to what little territory they still have after the arrival of the Franks: small, isolated communities in Brittany, Navarre, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Just like in history. In fact, they really should be in.
Koreas greatest achievment is repelling two japanese invasions and serving as a battleground, but barbs can do that. Not needed.
Zululand could work with massively cost-reduced impis (in the Zulu War it was like 100 Zulus for every English). It'd be a desperate and bloody fight to keep independence - unless they go with the ahistorical path and become vassals of an European power.
Vikings should be in, and start at 793 with a longship (galley) and two berserks in addition to other starting units. Lindisfarne shall burn!
Ottomans should be in, and start as muslim.

..That leaves a slot for another civ! May I suggest the Khmer (Start date around 700 AD), or possibly Sumer (Start date 3000 BC)?

..That leaves a slot for another civ! May I suggest the Khmer (Start date around 700 AD), or possibly Sumer (Start date 3000 BC)?
Instead of Sumeria, there will be Babylon, starting at 3'000 BC. If you want you can check out my thread on this project ;).

I am of the opinion that it would be a good idea to make the Incans/Aztecs either minor nations or maybe represent them with barbarians, since the only real impact they had in history was getting crushed by a handful of conquistadors, when there are other civs which deserve representation much more (I would be all for putting the Portugese and Dutch in there, they were major colonial powers too). Of course, it would take a fair bit of work to do that since the leaderhead, UU, UP, and UB and god knows what else would all have to be done, and I have NO clue how to do any of that. I know that this probably (almost definitely) won't happen, it's still just my opinion on the matter. And as for the new Civs in Warlords, I don't think the Koreans or Zulu should be put in, and I think the Celts might be a good idea for a minor Civ.

carthage and rome neednt be in a locked war, just use the AI Wars and have them very disposed to fighting. would the ottomans start in central asia and conquer westwards, like the persians do, or would they pop up in anatolia?

Remember this isnt a historical simulation. The ottomans dont necessarily need to be as powerful as the real ones and they dont need to fade in the 1650's. They should be made powerful enough to make waves but still be balanced and exist as long as they can maintain their empire.

I only said there should be a CHANCE, that is to say, if their neighbours happen to be a little weak and things go well for them.

Regarding decline, I think it would be cool if decesions had to be made to affect how dynamic you turn out to be, but there is a price to pay if you chose to remain dynamic.

Carthage and Rome could begin in locked war? Also the celts could start in france like 1000 BC (they predate the romans) and then have the French start "on top" of them. So if they aren't destroyed by the romans, they'll have to fight to cling on to what little territory they still have after the arrival of the Franks: small, isolated communities in Brittany, Navarre, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Just like in history. In fact, they really should be in.
Koreas greatest achievment is repelling two japanese invasions and serving as a battleground, but barbs can do that. Not needed.
Zululand could work with massively cost-reduced impis (in the Zulu War it was like 100 Zulus for every English). It'd be a desperate and bloody fight to keep independence - unless they go with the ahistorical path and become vassals of an European power.
Vikings should be in, and start at 793 with a longship (galley) and two berserks in addition to other starting units. Lindisfarne shall burn!
Ottomans should be in, and start as muslim.

..That leaves a slot for another civ! May I suggest the Khmer (Start date around 700 AD), or possibly Sumer (Start date 3000 BC)?

We need to avoid locked wars. All Rhye has to do is make carthage part of Romes territory wants and the system will handle the rest. Most games youd see a war between the two though not necessarilly always.

Regarding declines thats something that is already modeled in the game when civs lose wars and territory and such. Forced declines are way too deterministic.

I want to make a case for
Korea: Asia does just seem a little too small for me, of course, the Korean peninsula is too small, but that's what makes it interesting, a civ that has to fight for survival from the beginning
Khmer: Dito, Southeastasia is void at the moment, it'd add a opposition to India, Japan and China, could be exchanged with Indonesia or Thailand if you wish... doesn't matter that much.
Tibet As it is with the other two civs, this would spice things up again in Asia.
Zulu Why not? Of course, they would have no way of winning the game, but I see them as a representative for the battle against colonialism in africa (fighting all the civs that have colonies there), simulating one part of history...
Ethiopia on the other hand certainly deserves it, but I'd simply wait with its inclusion due to balancing reasons

Oh, btw. Why succeeded in simulating colonialism, now we need a way to simulate the opposite movement of the later years... ;)

m

I also support the inclusion of Korea and the Zulu.

I cannot believe you would rule out the Celts on the piss-poor idea excuse that they are "barbarians". Aside from being a very sophisticated society with vibrant artistic traditions and one of the first "welfare states" (more accurately a 'welfare ethic' but it was imposed nonetheless and unthought of by Mediterranean empires) in the world, the Celts would put some focus on northern and western Europe in the early game. Morholt's suggestion of letting Germanic peoples overrun the Celtic world (if it still exists in the dark ages) is very interesting and would certainly give Germanic nations some focus on their arrival.

If your logic is that the Celts were not united in an imperial sense, then by all means remove the Aztecs due to their lack of a true standing army (this combined with their unfortunate overexpansion significantly weakened the Aztec nation prior to Cortés) and make sure Spain doesn't appear until the 1400s. Infact, why stop there? The Greeks never united under a native leader and nor did the Indians, and what the hell are the Mongols doing in this game? The chances that they would unite to become a global force were incredibly small, and as someone said earlier, this isn't a historical simulator.

Sardonic ranting aside, I'd say it is only logical to include the Celts. I haven't seen any legitimate reason to remove them from the game so far, and if you wish to exclude them, it might be wise to find one.

I still love what you've done and before my reign of terror comes to an end by the post reply button, I'd like to voice support for Ethiopia or Aksum.

My understanding of the Celts lack of inclusion on the Warlords mod was because the land area that they occupied is the same land that will be occupied later on in the game by the more important French and English (not sure about the English, but yeah). It's not that the Celts were barbarians, it's that there is no room in the world for them as the later European Civs are more important, so what's the point in having them? Maybe as a minor nation... but not as a a major one.

@Phallus the question was not wether the celts were barbarians. No, instead, one simply stated that they are simulated well enough by the barbarians. In a game like RFC, there's simply no room for them, byebye...

mitsho

EDIT: btw, as you can see I am too from a region where we hold our celtic heritage very high, so no flaming to me please ;)

Hey guys, can I just say I am really for the inclusion of the ottomans, I really think they would be a benifit, Tibet and Khmer would be good for asia, but I am not sure about korea.....

Do we really need the Ottomans? They'll just clog up the already full Asia Minor and middle east. There are already Greece, Persia, and Arabia in that area.

Exactly, all these civs start in these areas and all of these civs (+ Turkey) are still present if we look at the modern world. Let's take a look at history.
When the Turks came from Central Asia (yes, that's where they should start) in the Middle Ages, the following civs were present in the region: greece (the Byzantine Empire) and the Arabs. Persia and Egypt were conquered by one of these. The Turks rolled over the Arabs, were then bent back by the Crusades and the Mongols and afterwards finally went on to conquer the Minor Asiatic part of the Greek lands, making it their homeland. So, my point is, although the area was clogged, the Turks still decided to invade and build up their homeland there. In my opinion, it would lead to an interesting game if we could try to simulate that, meaning the Turks start with a force that has to conquer its homeland first, or stay in the region of the so called Turk states (all the countries with -stan). They are in no way a nation too much in the region (hey, we already want to include the Mesopotamians on top of that), no they would stir up the things already.
In my experience, one of these civs (Greece, Persia or the Arabs) always end up dominating the region. This is a difference to other regions, in Europe, the civs rarely battle in the homeland (successfully), as they have the possibility to expand into colonies, with the exception of Germany. The same happens with Egypt, China and Japan (etc.) These other civs (Greece, Persia and the Arabs, but to an extend also Rome) are "boxed in" which always creates interesting situations. Adding now another two civs to the region just balances it out, it'll be more problematic for one to rise to absolute power and they therefore must search other "ways out". More wars, less building of the Asiatic-Siberian steppes which would in turn allow the Russians more to evolve "historically" (I btw. would therefore like an Arabia which would (with a little starting help) try to expand a bit over the seas, Dar-es-Salam and Indonesia come to my mind)).

In conclusion, we need the Turks, as they were a) very important historically and b) fill up a hole gameplaywise that could again hinder the "evolution to a uber-civ" by the Persians, or the Arabs, or the Greeks, or the Romans (whoever takes the lead in the region in each game).

mitsho

I agree with the former post.

I agree with the former post.
... and don't forget, the Babylonians will be in the region soon :D. I am with adding the Ottomans, as long as the other civs (Babylon, Arabia, Persia and Greece) are tweaked respectively, so that we can achieve historical accuracy.

I agree that adding the Ottomans is just about essential, along with the Babylonians. Carthage I do consider essential.

I think the Vikings could be a pretty good addition too.

Someone posted in the other thread the idea of having the Portugese or the Dutch. As much as I would love to have them in, believe me, there is no room for either of them. There just simply isn't the space. The same pretty much goes for Korea, except Korea would have a little bit more room to expand, but still imo not enough.

...and so there isn't enough space for the Celts, "there just simply isn't the space".

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to add the Iroqouis or some other Native American civ...

I'm pro-Celts. The only problem with them is that if they survive, the European Civs will flip them anyway. Unless we start adding a BUNCH of Civs and many don't make it in the game (my dream mod, but not a direction R&F is going in right now) that makes them sacrificial lambs. So they could have a capital in Ireland, or they could be a minor Civ.

Oh yeah, I also think that there is no need for the Celts. Not enough space, they are replaced by France, and the barbs already do a good job.

about the celts, I really dont think they should have thier capital in Ireland, because that is not where they originally came from.

Also I herd something about an area a civ wants, like a target area or something, what would happen if we had a turkish civ, put it in khasakstan (where the persians have build Samarkhand (sp?) in every game I have seen them, but set thier target area to Asia Minor?
Although I would profere an ottoman civ to a generic turkish one, and if the is an ottoman Civ IMHO I think it should start in Asia Minor.

P.s. could someone (Rhye?) please say that the ottomans are defonatly in because I really cannot wait to play as them :).

btw, as you can see I am too from a region where we hold our celtic heritage very high

Damn, it really shows doesn't it? :p

Just in case anyone forgot :)
you guess right - there will be only Ottomans, Vikings, Carthage and possibly Babylon as playable new civs. The others will be minor.

@Phallus the question was not wether the celts were barbarians. No, instead, one simply stated that they are simulated well enough by the barbarians. In a game like RFC, there's simply no room for them, byebye...


Are the Celts simulated well enough by the Barbarians? Maybe. Then if so, let's get rid of the Mongols, Aztecs, Incas, Carthaginians, and Vikings as well.

Are the Celts simulated well enough by the Barbarians? Maybe. Then if so, let's get rid of the Mongols, Aztecs, Incas, Carthaginians, and Vikings as well.
Do all of these civilizations also inhabit an area which is identical to one of the later civs? No.

Think how screwed up it would be if the Celts survived and you had them alive next to France. It would make no sense. By representing them with barbarians Rome still gets attacked and you avoid having, in effect, a redundant civ.

I thought I would throw this somewhere...

Can't the Celts be a minor civ? having a flag that represents them but are a minor civ?

I think the Celts hold a weird enough place in history that if they aren't removed, they should be changed... with Barbarians representing the early Celts, and the Celts being changed to be some kind of inheritor of their legacy (since many other civilizations arguably inherit a Celtic legacy as well).

Damn, it really shows doesn't it? :p

Ever thought why Switzerland has CH on its cars? We don't call ourselves Allamans, we think we are Helvetes... ;) Seriously, ok, it doesn't show that well, but that's not important.

I agree that the celts should be a minor civ, not a playable one.

Also, I know it would mean some heavy work, but I think we simply need to have Austria in the game. Right now, if either Rome or Greece falls, Germany can jus swell to fill up the space, and then further cut off France and Spain from the rest of the world while easily reaching over twice the size of them. I na recent game My German Empire went all the way to Panormus and Byzantion while still filling the Poland Germany and Denmark area. I was also starting to expand into Scandinavia (I know it won't be a problem with the Vikings in Warlords) and all of this was fueled by the Vatican in Mailand giving me massive research. While sort of historically accurate (I certainly attained the old German Holy Roman Empire area) it got a little bit extreme. I think an Austria would expand to fill a fallen Greece nicely and restrict Germany so it can't become a super monster.

Of course it could be I just got luck or am that good and the AI would never make use of this, but I doubt it.

I also think there is plenty of room for a Korea, Behold:
131714

I don't lie, it would be an extremely tough game, but considering every 1.00 game I have played China has always been dead by at least the time the French spawn, I think Korea will have plenty of space to expand into.

I would also like to see the dutch in the game, and I don't think they have much less space than the Dutch did in Rhye's of Civilisation, proportionately at least. Also I have seen 1 city civs triumph pretty well, and the Dutch were always a big collonial power. They were also the only civ I honestly regret never playing from Rhye's of Civ 3.

I agree that the celts should be a minor civ, not a playable one.

Also, I know it would mean some heavy work, but I think we simply need to have Austria in the game. Right now, if either Rome or Greece falls, Germany can jus swell to fill up the space, and then further cut off France and Spain from the rest of the world while easily reaching over twice the size of them. I na recent game My German Empire went all the way to Panormus and Byzantion while still filling the Poland Germany and Denmark area. I was also starting to expand into Scandinavia (I know it won't be a problem with the Vikings in Warlords) and all of this was fueled by the Vatican in Mailand giving me massive research. While sort of historically accurate (I certainly attained the old German Holy Roman Empire area) it got a little bit extreme. I think an Austria would expand to fill a fallen Greece nicely and restrict Germany so it can't become a super monster.


Turkey will do the job

I also agree that Korea should be in.

I agree with the post about the Dutch (and the portugese), even though I know that they won't be in now matter how much I say I would like it. IF they were somehow, some way included though, wouldn't it be possible to direct the AI away from Europe so that they don't choke out the Civs they're nearby? (France, Germany and Spain) Anyways, I am no modder and have only the most basic understanding of how it's done. I'm not saying that the Dutch/Portugese NEED to be included, I'm just saying that I think they're more important then say, the Aztecs or the Incans, or the Carthaginians even. They were both Colonial powers. I haven't got high hopes for their inclusion, I'm just making a bit of an argument for them.

(Semii-OT Rant...)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the Dutch and Portugese are more important than the Aztecs or the Incans. To me, you have to look at the big picture. It's not just about who had the impact on the most people... but, with the current civilizations in the list, what elements of history have not been accounted for?

Let's say you had zero civilizations to start. Then the major civilizations to add are definitely Rome, China, and Egypt. You can argue that all of European history was impacted heavily by Rome, all Asian history was impacted heavily by China, and all African AND near Eastern history was impacted by Egypt. You could account for pretty much all history as some kind of descendent of all 3... except that you haven't accounted for a good 15% of the world's population in Mesoamerica, so you have to add the Aztecs.

From there, you might recognize how powerful Greece had an impact on western thinking, and how much India had an impact on Eastern thinking. But then you'd realize you need a distinctly Middle Eastern Civilization, like the Arabs. Then you'd recognize that northern Europe in the post-middle ages would be the next highest priority, and England would probably come up. Then you'd find yourself looking at the industrial and modern powers for WW2, and grab Japan, Germany, America, Russia and France in one fell swoop... with Germany standing in for Austria and Rome standing in for Italy.

It's all about priorities. You DO need to cover all the parts of history, and sometimes that means letting civilizations standing in for each other. (e.g.: the Arabs stand in for the Turks AND Babylonians, Egypt stands in for Ethiopia, China stands in for Korea, Greece stands in for the Byzantines)... but as you recognize that important events that impacted large numbers of people are left out, you add a civilization that uniquely satisfies that important region/era in history. By the time you've reached your 40th or 50th civ, you might go for the detail of the Kurds or the Swiss (rather than leaving them as standins by other Near-Eastern and European Civs).

(Semi-OT rant over.)

Right now there's a healthy amount of colonization going on. But it's obvious the buffer between East and West is a little underrepresented. For that reason, it makes sense that we add Turkey first, then look at other colonial powers later.

Well there goes my argument out the window. I still think that the Dutch and Portugese were important nations and had a big impact on history, (if not near so big as some other nations such as Rome, China or Egypt, to use your first 3 civs, but I still think that they're more important then the mesoamerican nations) but the real reason I would like to see them in is because I like to play as the Colonial Nations the most, and if there were more in there, I'd be even happier. I can live with England, France and Spain, I was just saying.

Turks are a definite.

Babylon next, although the Mideast currently seems to function alright (unless you wanted to play as Mesopotamia).

I'd pick the Celts before the Vikings but I know there is always the question... where do they go? If Rome never conquered Gaul would it be more applicable to have the Celts or French in that region??? They are a few solutions I can think of, none of which are perfect.

I see the same question for a native civ in North America... albiet the vestiges of civilization in the region were slim, I'd rather see America (USA version) be a rebirth of a conquered civ, throwing off the shackles of English rule. :)

I like the idea of Carthage, the Barbarians in the region are isolated from the others so it would be nice to play them as a seperate civ.

The Viking presence is missed, no raiding parties from Scandinavia, yet what role would the civ assume if intended to live on until the Modern Age.

Korea would be tough to put in. They would need a lot of influences to keep them bottled up in their pennisula. I'd rather view the Mongols or Japanese as representing the Koreans. Of course, I'd rather view the Mongols as "China, North".

Dutch and Portuguese. I would love to see the varied colors of territories grabbed by the Europeans other than Red, Blue, and Gold. On the other hand, I'll side with the fact that "Spain" can easily act as both Iberian countries, etc. Of course, I would like to see more German/Deutsch/Dutch colonization, Indian Ocean stuff.

Idea!

The Celts are centered in Gaul and start 1000BC (or so, could be 2000BC or 100BC, whatever).

As it stands now, after Constitution is discovered old civs have a chance of reviving. How about, a similar chance once Monarchy (or Feudalism or Divine Right) is discovered. This way if the Celts are conquered they have a chance of returning in, say, 770AD. Viola, France.

Then again, there is always the problem of naming the civilization. Can it be both? Which name to choose?

Babylon next, although the Mideast currently seems to function alright (unless you wanted to play as Mesopotamia).

The Babylonians are a MUST, I can't believe Firaxis left them out not once, but TWICE (in the expansion). I think it goes under their insolense towards realistic history.
Mesopotamia cannot go unrepresented, especially when they were known to have contributed many great things to human civilization, most importantly were of Writing, the wheel and civil law. Civilization without Mesopotamia, it's just wrong.

I am nearly done on my Mesopotamian project. I have all the graphic assets for them (animated LH, UB, UU), I just have to write-up the XML, and wait for Rhye to create the UP. You would probably see Babylon in the first RFC: Warlords.

Banking on the Babylonians to sell a second expansion pack. They need something to sell before Civ5. :(

Great work on getting the civ ready for the Warlords version, Prestidigitator. :)

I agree with the current idea of inclusion, except I also believe that the Celts and the Zulu should be represented.

The Viking presence is missed, no raiding parties from Scandinavia, yet what role would the civ assume if intended to live on until the Modern Age.


The role of making Volvos, IKEA (Sweden), and exporting oil (Norway).

I'm only half-joking. I don't see the problem. You do realise Scandinavia is still there, IRL, in our Modern Age?

Of course, there's no problem. It's just that they (Sweden, Norway, Finland) aren't all that important these days. But then, look at Rome (Italy). Sure, it's still a major nation but it's nothig compared to the Roman Empire. Spain? No territories left in South America. The UK ain't quite what she used to be. All I'm saying is that just because a country isn't that important NOW shouldn't affect how important it WAS in any way. The Vikes raided and pillaged for over 100 years (I think). The glory days of the vikings may be long gone, but they still happened.

It's about priorities. We obviously ought to include as many as possible. That's the short answer, but also in the long run.

In the short run, we need to throw in as many nations as it takes to simulate the accuracies of history. I can't say that Europe expands too fast or far -- which would be the main reason to *demand* the Vikings, as a check on their power.

The Germans, English and Russians also spend a lot of time expanding into Scandanavia, which obviously they wouldn't if the Vikings were there.

The Vikes raided and pillaged for over 100 years (I think). The glory days of the vikings may be long gone, but they still happened.

Well over 200 years actually.

(Usually the Viking Age is considered to be 790 - 1066, although raids were undertaken in England before 790, and in Ireland continued long after 1066 (more like 1100). So you could argue 300 years.)

For gameplay purposes they would prevent England from settling the pennisula, but where would they expand? Iceland, Greenland, and Labrodor, I guess. Maybe they would do more (post-1066) than just fill space. I'd welcome the Vikings, they just aren't on the tippy-top of priorities (from my point of view).

To me, the Vikings are about important as the Portugese and the Dutch and the Ethiopians. They would control areas that do get covered by neighbors already . (France Spain and England do some colonization, Russia Germany and England settle up north, and Egypt Mali and Zulu cover Africa). Nothing terrible about the current state of affairs, but the game could always use more detail.

The Vikings as a nation should not be in this mod (or in Civ at all imho), mainly as there was never a Viking nation as such.

However, the Scandinavians should be in the game as a collective nation as their contribution to world history since the Viking("Sea Raider") days have been no less important than many of the other nations also in the mod/civ atm - and also, of course, since Scandinavians are still around and going quite strong.

I would be perfectly fine with them having a UU called Viking Berserker and/or Viking Longship to represent their heritage and the Viking era properly.

So...You're saying we shouldn't include a Civ on the basis of it's name? If the name was changed to "Scandinavians", what difference would it make?

I think he has a point, not one that I necessarily believe in (I don't have much knowledge in Northern European civilizations), but I think what he is saying is that the Scaninavians were more historically significant, or probably more collective than just saying 'the Vikings'.
Sort of why we chose 'Babylon' as a Mesopotamian civ rather than 'Akkad' for example.

Vikings means "Sea raiders" and refers to that specific time of the Scandinavian civilization. It is the time of the pagan barbaric tribes which believed in Valhalla and sailed to Vinland, America. Scandinavians is a term that summarizes the people of Norway, Sweden, Denmark (Iceland, the Faroers, etc. ... but not necessarily Finland). Their history includes the Vikings, but also adds everything from the Calmar union to Abba.

It's just a name change, nothing more. It's similar to the English/British-question. In other words, would you like it if we talked of New England, but meant whole America?

mitsho

Vikings means "Sea raiders" and refers to that specific time of the Scandinavian civilization. It is the time of the pagan barbaric tribes which believed in Valhalla and sailed to Vinland, America. Scandinavians is a term that summarizes the people of Norway, Sweden, Denmark (Iceland, the Faroers, etc. ... but not necessarily Finland). Their history includes the Vikings, but also adds everything from the Calmar union to Abba.

It's just a name change, nothing more. It's similar to the English/British-question. In other words, would you like it if we talked of New England, but meant whole America?

mitsho
That's what I thought... ;)

It just seems like a rather stupid idea to base the opinion of not including a civ on, to me. If we called the English the British, would it be a good idea not to include them? As far as I'm concerned, it's just a name for the same group of peoples used in a different time period. Italians aren't Romans anymore (unless they live in Rome). I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to change the name from Vikings to Scandinavians, I just can't see why you wouldn't want to include them if they were called the Vikings.

He isn't advocating excluding the Vikings, but to rename them to the Scandinavians. Pasta ;) Is that this hard to get. I know it's not that clear from what he wrote, but nevertheless, it's probably the idea.

mitsho

For gameplay purposes they would prevent England from settling the pennisula, but where would they expand? Iceland, Greenland, and Labrodor, I guess. Maybe they would do more (post-1066) than just fill space. I'd welcome the Vikings, they just aren't on the tippy-top of priorities (from my point of view).

The Scandanavian powers were also important in Europe in the Renaissance and even a bit later, especially Sweden, which was one of the prime superpowers of 17th century Europe.

The name Viking is fine. It does an accurate job of portraying the scandanavian people in their most influential time period in history. Just like the Romans represent italy. Italy has never been more important than when it was ROme and Scandanavia has never been more important than when it was collectiveley known as Viking land.

While the Vikings were Scandinavians the Scandinavians were never known as "Viking land" - collectively or not - and noone with even the smallest degree of historical insight regarding the nordic peoples would say otherwise.

So no Eddiit - the term Viking is not fine and does not accurately portray the Scandinavian peoples as a civ throughout history. It is as accurate as calling the English for "The Pirates" just because they had extensive privateer practices at one point.

In French contemporary writings (800-1100), Scandinavians are sometimes called Normanni (Northmen), sometimes Dani (Danes), regardless of where they actually came from (i.e. a man from Norway could be called 'Dane' one day and 'Northman' the next -- the same for a man from Denmark). But they were never called Vikings. Not in France.

Only on the British isles were Scandinavians occasionally called Vikings. At other times they were Danes or Northmen. Again, regardless of actual origin.

The word Viking -- while in the 13th century sagas indeed used to mean 'sea reaider' -- does in itself only mean 'of the bay'. Originally it probably referred specifically to people from Viken, the land around the Oslo fjord (called Follen fjord in Viking times). Viken means 'the bay'. A person from Viken would be a Viking, linguistically. The term was probably applied to all Scandinavians (on the British isles) in the same way 'Dane' and 'Northman' was.

And that's the story of the word 'Viking'.

Do with it as you see fit.

I just don't see any need to change it. "Viking" would be the more common term, and even if it wasn't used back then to refer to the Scandinavians of that period as a whole, it is NOW. I'm not saying it shouldn't be changed, i'm just saying that I see no reason to.

It should be changed. It would be very easy to do, and would be an improvement on the standard game.

I just don't see any need to change it. "Viking" would be the more common term, and even if it wasn't used back then to refer to the Scandinavians of that period as a whole, it is NOW. I'm not saying it shouldn't be changed, i'm just saying that I see no reason to.Are you saying you still call Danes, Icelandics, Swedes, Norwegians etc. for Vikings in any other situation than when you are trying to be funny or lighten up a conversation? If you are then you might be advised that most Scandinavians will take offense of being called that in a serious tone today(even if they are often proud of their Viking heritage).

As I already said in my first post then a Scandinavian civ with the UUs of a "Viking Berserker" and/or "Viking Longboat" would serve to represent both the Viking age and the entire cause of history far better. A Scandinavian civ would in fact allow for far more varied Leaders also representing later Scandinavian periods (Magrethe I/II, Gustavus Adolphus etc.).

In truth then the only place where a Viking civ might be appropriate would be a scenario focusing around the middle ages - or a fantasy one.

No no no, I wouldn't refer to them as Vikings now, but I would refer to the Scandinavians of the "Viking" times as Vikings, collectively. But the Romans don't change to the Italians after a certain date, and the Aztecs don't change to the Mexicans. I don't even see why I'm arguing, I don't really even care. If you think it'd be better as Scandinavians, then whatever, I see no reason to change it or to leave it as it is.

@McA123:
I am sorry to say this but you analogies are poorly chosen

1) Rome was an Empire that existed over 1000 years - the Vikings(by that name) was never even a collective nation.

2) The Aztech Empire fell when it was conquered by the Spanish - Scandinavia was never conquered(WW2 not withstanding) and are still inhabited and controlled by people with Viking heritage.

No, I was just saying that YES, the Aztecs were conquered and died and so forth, but in the mod they usually survive (and by usually I mean almost always). But as I said, i don't really even care. I don't even know why I'm continuing to post in this thread. This is the last thing I will say on the matter; you clearly know more about this than I do, and if you think it would be best to change the "Vikings" to "Scandinavians" or something else, then be my guest. I won't object.

Edit: And about the Roman one, meh.

Wouldn't it be possible to have civs' names change over time? It seems very appropriate for the mod, what with dynamic rise and fall and all that.

To have Rome become Italy, Ottomans become Turks, and yes, Vikings become Scandinavia?

Would that be difficult? Is there anyone who would object to this? Someone must have thought of this already, surely!

Wouldn't it be possible to have civs' names change over time? It seems very appropriate for the mod, what with dynamic rise and fall and all that.

To have Rome become Italy, Ottomans become Turks, and yes, Vikings become Scandinavia?

Would that be difficult? Is there anyone who would object to this? Someone must have thought of this already, surely!
... And England Becomes United Kingdom
Babylon becomes Iraq
Aztecs become Mexico
Inca becomes Peru
Ottomans become Turkey
Rome becomes Italy

... and that's about it really, if you really want to discuss this...

I'd like to discuss whether this will be implemented.

Someone had that idea before, but I guess everyone just forgot about it. It would be a nice coesmetic change though.

Actually the scandinavian nations was even more powerful in the late 17th and eatly 18th century than during the age of Vikings. The Vikings may be remembered as barbarian raiders, but they mainly where traders who spread their culture from north america through out Europe and all the way down to turkey and the middle east.

One of the feats I've always been missing about vikings in civ is the way that the Viking ships most distinguishing characteristics was the way the even though they could carry quite a load, they could still navigate shallow waters and used rivers to cut through Europe rather than go around it, sometimes they even pulled the ship several kilometers over land. Don't know how the game dynamics would have to be configuered to allow unique ships to travell rivers though, but it would be a sweet UP, being able to construct ships and coastal city improvements in cities along rivers but away from the shoreline.

Otherwise I'd think that the UP should be either cultural or economical (trading). The cultural is the one I'd consider making most sense, since first of all, there are still many traces of the viking culture scattered through out the world, and second, considering the puny population of the region, scandinavia is still very renown. Also, this might be a bit far fetched, but Sweden with just about 9 million inhabitans still has one of the worlds largest musical exports -> lots of "Great Artists" spawning (last time I heard an official listing, it was the third largest, surpassed only by the U.S.A. and the U.K.). But as stated previously, trade is also large over all, with oil as well as metals, minerals, wood and paper being large exports.

When it comes to science, Scandinavia might have had Alfred Nobel and a few other great inventors, but it really isn't until modern age they've been any great reaserchers. Biology, ecology and such are probably the areas where Scandinavian science have been most succesfull. This doesn't really qualify to make it a scientific civ in the long run.

The Vikings mainly expanded to the west: Brittan, Iceland, Greenland and Vinland (North America). They were pretty much driven away by native american tribes though, so they would be a natural foe around that time. Later on starting sometime around the 17th century the scandinavians fought mainly (eachother, but that wouldn't make any sense if united as one civ) Russia and Germany for control over the baltic sea.


Last but not least, The scandinavians are a germanic people, so letting the peninsula fall under German is the most logical way if not including vikings or scandinavians as more than a minor civ, though the number one enemy of scandinavia has through out history always been Russia rather than Germany, and it seems to me that Russia donä't really have lots of enemies right now, so I don't think it'd hurt the balance if Sacndinavia was included.



And there it is, my silence has been broken.


(Considering the other suggested civs, I don't really have anything new to add to the discussion)

... And England Becomes United Kingdom
Babylon becomes Iraq
Aztecs become Mexico
Inca becomes Peru
Ottomans become Turkey
Rome becomes Italy

... and that's about it really, if you really want to discuss this...

I disagree with having this feature.

1)Babylon isnt Babylon anymore because the city was burned to the ground
2)The Aztecs are Mexico because the Aztec nation was invaded and nearly wiped out
3)Same with the Incas
4)The ottomans only became Turkey after losing all of their possesions in WW1
5)Rome only became Italy after it fell and went through a thousand years of internal strife.

I bring this up because if any of these nations had truly survived to modern day then they would still be called by their original name. WHy would a modern Roman empire change its name to spain? Same with the Aztecs and any of the others.

I disagree with having this feature.

1)Babylon isnt Babylon anymore because the city was burned to the ground
2)The Aztecs are Mexico because the Aztec nation was invaded and nearly wiped out
3)Same with the Incas
4)The ottomans only became Turkey after losing all of their possesions in WW1
5)Rome only became Italy after it fell and went through a thousand years of internal strife.

I bring this up because if any of these nations had truly survived to modern day then they would still be called by their original name. WHy would a modern Roman empire change its name to spain? Same with the Aztecs and any of the others.
Eddiit, I'm sure you've read the '... if you really want to discuss it' at the bottom of my quote right? I just gave these as support if this came into effect, the main idea was that the empires change names. When I said Babylon I meant the actual civ that will be added in the Warlords version.

It makes sense if you think about it as changing empires, however I'm not a very strong supporter of the idea anyway.

It doesn't make much of a difference anyways.

I just wondered something, has there been any thought as to what the Warlords civ's Unique Powers are going to be?

We should probably start getting those thought up so once Rhye converts the Mod to Warlords we can have all of the Python or XMl for their abilities ready to be plugged in, it would speed up the creation and conversion process in my oppinion.

Unfotunately I have no ideas myself, I'm honestly just hoping to get a ball rolling.

Well for Babylon I had thought that we had agreed on the idea of just one turn of resistance for conquered cities, but then again I'm not sure if it was made 'official' or not.

For the Vikings I think you could do something along the lines of doubling the amount of money gained from capturing a city. You could call it the Power of Raiding or something like that.

My best idea for Carthage would be to make it less expensive for them to hire mercenaries. Or you could do some type of commercial bonus, but I don't have any good ideas for that. Their UB already gives them +1 trade routes in coastal cities.

I like the idea of Carthage's UP involving mercs. Maybe maintenence costs for mercs could be cut in half? It encourages Carthage to use mercs but doesn't cripple their economy (or not so much, anyways).

Yeah, when I said less expensive to hire mercs I also ment maintenece. Maybe just 1/2 merc costs overall (hiring and maintenence.)

Well for Babylon I had thought that we had agreed on the idea of just one turn of resistance for conquered cities, but then again I'm not sure if it was made 'official' or not.
Yeah, I really liked your idea Gunner, but it is all up to Rhye, he said he will have to decide upon it when he codes the SDK for the Warlords version.

I would personally Say the Vikings should get Mongolia's current power of pillaging without loss of movement points, and give Mongolia the Surrender power that Persia has, and then think of something new for Persia, but that would be a lot of work for Persia.

For Carthage I would also like cheaper Mercenaries.

THe Ottomons I have no clue about, but I think it might be something that reduces the defenses of cities they attack, as that would help them attack well developped cities succesfully, and In my oppinion one of the greatest feats of the Ottomon Empire was that it was one of the only 2 people to ever conquer Constantinople. Beyond that however, I know next to nothing about the Ottomons, so I can't really say if that is truly a representation of all of the Ottomon power.

Maybe a a free upgrade for artillary units for the ottomans?

I would personally Say the Vikings should get Mongolia's current power of pillaging without loss of movement points, and give Mongolia the Surrender power that Persia has, and then think of something new for Persia, but that would be a lot of work for Persia.
I'm kinda of the opinion that the Mongol's current power is useless. Giving double money from capturing cities would be representing the same type of idea, but I think it would be far more useful.

THe Ottomons I have no clue about, but I think it might be something that reduces the defenses of cities they attack, as that would help them attack well developped cities succesfully, and In my oppinion one of the greatest feats of the Ottomon Empire was that it was one of the only 2 people to ever conquer Constantinople. Beyond that however, I know next to nothing about the Ottomons, so I can't really say if that is truly a representation of all of the Ottomon power.
I actually just taped a two hour documentary on the Ottomans yesterday (aren't I cool :D), and I'll probably watch it tommorow. So hopefully then I'll have a good idea for them ;)

Giving the Mongols power to the Vikes would be a bad idea. The Mongols are in serious need of a new UP, and there's no need to pawn off a power that's not good enough for one Civ onto another. Doubled money from capturing cities would be nice, and at the very least better than the current Mongol UP. I could probably count the times I've ever done any pillaging on my hands and have a few fingers left over.

I agree, I very rarelly pillage as I want my new terrertories with as much infrastructure as possible...

Yeah, when I said less expensive to hire mercs I also ment maintenece. Maybe just 1/2 merc costs overall (hiring and maintenence.)


aye, that was already my idea.
It just needs a name

Maybe a a free upgrade for artillary units for the ottomans?


sounds a good idea. A kind of civ2 Leonardo's workshop, applied to Artillery.
I actually think this could be a cool idea for replacing English (navy) and/or German (gunpowder) UP too.

Hmm. A name for a Mercenary power. That could be kind of tough to come up with. I suppose if no one thinks of anything better, then "The Power of Mercenaries" might have to suffice.

The Power of Pecuniary or the Power of Commerce perhaps.

The power of commerce is misleading though, it makes you think it's probably something like that of Mali.

What about "The Power of Contract?" I'm not completely satisfied with it, but can't think of anything better either.

You could mention one of the main mercenary generals, or perhaps that most of the mercenaries were from Libya, or so on...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary_War

I don't think it would really make sense to mention one specific person, especially since Punic armies were almost always lead by native citizens of Carthage.

Here's another idea: "The Power of Wealth," or "The Power of Riches."

The problem with making it something along those lines is that it makes you think that it's like the Malinese UP (and "The Power of Wealth" is the Malinese UP).

Oh whoops, I thought that that might have been the Malinese name :lol:

I hear what you're saying, there's really no good name for it.

So we all got side tracked by the Carthaginian name game I'm just giving this a bump.

Looks to me like the current civs and UPs are:
Babylon - reduced resistance for conquered cities
Carthage - reduced mercenary costs
Ottomans - seige improvements
Vikings - double gold from capturing cities

Did any other civs or powers have a general concensus whcih I missed?

I like the ideas listed above. I guess they need names and the Ottomans need specifics.

I'm not quite sure I agree with the seige improvements for the Ottomans - ultimately they acquired the monster cannon that took Constantinople because the Byzantines couldn't afford it - meanwhile, the same seige weapons got stuck in the mud on the way to Vienna, resulting in the Ottoman failure to capture the city...

And upgrades to seige (if I'm reading right, correct me if I'm wrong) will eventually lead to the Ottomans having a modern army (or artillery), which they should not have, as they were so corrupt and spread out by the end that they couldn't afford it...

What impresses me about the Ottomans was that they continuously fielded (at least through Suleiman's time) large and well-led armies. The practice of the Devshirmeh (blood tax - the Ottomans required one child from Christian (or other non-Turk) families) created / feuled the Janissaries. They also had an unbelievable string of great sultans...

Would it be possible for any conquered city to provide one (or 2) Janissary(s), thereby creating / expanding the Ottoman military? Call it the Power of Devshirmeh (or some such)...

If that's not possible, perhaps some general / leader power or something - sorry, I'm not really up to speed on Warlords and what it adds...

You could give them cannon, etc. to start, so they have the siege ability, but I don't really see upgrades to seige weapons as the right UP...

Just some thoughts...

The siege improvements just sound so d*mn attractive, as it would simulate the Ottoman siege (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople) so well... they were also very effective in other cities in the Balkans, IIRC. But I like the idea of the Devshirmeh, as well. Where do we stand on this?

SilverKnight

I think the Devshirmeh might be overpowered, but I dunno, sounds good though...

You could make the Devshirmeh 1 free Janissary instead if 2 is overpowered.

Just to throw in another idea. The other things I know the Ottomans well for is their Millets. How exactly that could be implemented I don't know. Maybe making cities more likely to flip to the Ottomans and less likely to flip from them.

what are "millets"?

Millets were courts run by minority groups and under separate law to the Sunni Muslim law. In cases where a muslim was not involved the law of the offended party would be used. If a muslim was involved then the Sunni law was used. As far as I know any minority group could have one in exchange for being loyal to the empire.

Here's a link to the wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millet_%28Ottoman_Empire%29

The Devshermeh idea may very well be overpowered... I would think that it is very powerful when the Ottomans start, but much less over time - especially if they continue to get Jannissaries... as other civs modernize, it becomes harder for the Ottomans field a conquering army...

I agree that the siege should be there (Constantinople, Balkans, etc.), but I don't think that the Ottomans should get free upgrades (we do mean cannon -> artillery, etc. correct?). IMO, the Ottomans should not get any help with modernization of the military - they couldn't afford it... the player / AI should have to pay to upgrade units...

In this vein, Millets sound very good too - but how implement (easily)... courthouse adds 1 happiness or something like that? or a psuedo-Free Religion bonus? Not sure...

Again, just my two cents... thanks for not throwing me out!!

Perhaps courthouses could negate the "We year to join our Motherland" unhappiness bonus, that would seem to represent the millets well.

Personally however I like the sound of the free Janissary when you conquer a city, as it isn't centered on a building, and it will be extremely powerful in the beginning, which the ottomons will need unless many of the middle eastern civs fall before they get there, and then while it would still aply later on, it would cost more as you would get a janissary, and then have to upgrade them to make them usefull, as MustardStew said. It would seem to me to represent the massive rapid rise of the Empire and then its stagnation and decline.

If we went down the siege route I would propose a couple of free promotions maybe City Raider I and Accuracy and not free upgrades.

As for millets I like the idea of courthouses negating or reducing the we yearn to join our motherland unhappiness.

Overall I think all 3 of the current ideas sound good. I'd say that siege would be the UP most people will know the Ottomans for but it is certainly the least unique of the 3.

I actually really like the free jassinary power, as long as it isnt considerd overpowered

All good ideas... I like the jannissary idea myself for reasons already stated and because it's a UNIQUE UP. There are no other Civs with a UP like that.

In refernce to this since that thread went off topic.

Rhye what are the start dates you are proposing approximately for Ottomans, Turks, Carthginians and Phoenicians? Just so we can have a gauge of opinion.

edit; oops, please ignore my silly post...

Why do we have to call them the Phoenecians? I mean they would be nice, bout wouldn't they overcrowd the ME? now that Babylon is in?

Carthagianians were basically Phoenicians ("Punics"), but overcrowding ME is the main reason that keeps me from doing the switch. Unless I manage to drive phoenicians somehow to carthage without founding other cities next to Tyre. That would be cool.
Changing the Ottomans to Turks would push the date from 1299 back to 1000 or 1071 and the starting location in eastern anatolia instead of centre/west anatolia

The problems with driving them West would mean first having a very crowded ME but then also having to make their way past the Egyptians and Greeks. I could see them being wiped out quite often. Though I agree simulating the move of the Phoenicans to Carthage would be cool.

As for the Ottomans moving them back and starting them as something like the Seljuk could have some advantages but I don't see them being major. The small change in starting position wouldn't change much. The only factor would be the extra turns.

Ha! I have an idea :D, perhaps we could have the carthaginians start in Tunisia (their historic location), and have the phoenicians vassalized!

The problem is, by 800 BCE (start date?), probably the phoenicians would have been conquered so here's the deal...
1. Phoenicia is a minor civ, most probably will get conquered by Babylon or Egypt.
2. around 800 BCE, phoenicia resurrects, and becomes a vassal of Carthage, which gets born in around that date.

How does this sound Rhye?

That's an interesting idea, Prestidigitator. If it's possible to program without any other pitfalls, I'd like to see it happen.

It sounds interesting. I thought that you wouldn't be able to contact minor civs and if I'm right in thinking that then how would a minor civ as a vassel work? Though I certainly think being able to make vassels of minor civs would be a valuable addition.

I'm glad you guys liked the idea :), Rhye? what do you think?

As for the Ottomans moving them back and starting them as something like the Seljuk could have some advantages but I don't see them being major. The small change in starting position wouldn't change much. The only factor would be the extra turns.
I think it would be neat to have the Ottomans start out in Central Asia-ish and have a Persia-like conquest to the west...

Ha! I have an idea :D, perhaps we could have the carthaginians start in Tunisia (their historic location), and have the phoenicians vassalized!

The problem is, by 800 BCE (start date?), probably the phoenicians would have been conquered so here's the deal...
1. Phoenicia is a minor civ, most probably will get conquered by Babylon or Egypt.
2. around 800 BCE, phoenicia resurrects, and becomes a vassal of Carthage, which gets born in around that date.

How does this sound Rhye?
I like the Carthage/Phoencian idea.. but wouldn't it make more sense for it to be the other way around, since Carthage was a colony? Although I think it would play out better the way it was proposed.

I think it would be neat to have the Ottomans start out in Central Asia-ish and have a Persia-like conquest to the west...

I don't think starting them in central Asia as something comparable to the Gokturks would be a good idea. You would start them in a pretty barren region stunting their growth and then have to compete with China, India, Russia, Persia, Mongolia if they survive. And then to move West and conquer the Middle East and Anatolia would be something which that empire never really did. Plus Rhye only wanted to move the starting location from West to East Anatolia.

If you were to start them in 1071 as you suggested Rhye you could still call them the Ottomans without too much trouble since that was around the time the Sultanate of Rum was formed and the Ottomans pretty much claimed independeance from that. I think you could start them around central Anatolia.

If you started them in 1000 they would most certainly have to be Turks since they would more or less be representing the Seljuk as I said. If starting here they would have to start in Eastern Anatolia but really should start in Persia. But I don't think it would be good starting them on top of Persia.

Was this kind of comparable to your thinking Rhye this was just from some Ottoman history stuff I've been looking into over the past couple of weeks. Or have I missed something you were basing the starting dates/locations around? eg just from a gameplay perspective.

Edit: Oh yeah and I agree with you McA123 that it's not really correct but for gameplay it would have to be that way.

yeah, that's it, more or less.
But a decision can't be taken until we actually try and see (for both Ottomans and Carthago).
Starting with a vassal might be a good idea, but if it's just for 1 city (Tyre) the deal isn't big enough. Better just expanding the flip area to Phoenicia.

Better just expanding the flip area to Phoenicia.

That'd work fine.

Better just expanding the flip area to Phoenicia.
Sounds excellent, haven't thought about that before :p .