Do we feel as a group that new civs when they first start should begin the game with basic Civics? For example:

should Spain start with Monarchy?
should America start with Free Market?
should France start with Organized religion?

The reason I was thinking of this is that in my newest game as America (have to look for my cow:D ) I will have to spend 3 turns of anarchy to get my new nation up to speed in civics.


Thoughts from the Rhye and the group?

I agree. It's usually not so much of a problem with Germany, since the first 2 turns are just startup (founding cities and letting the others flip). But I guess, Germany has a bit more turns in this game.:)

agreed. Let's hear what your proposals, based on the techs spawning civs have discovered in the starting turn.

For starters, the favorite civic that each leader has (if available). I don´t know what else, as everything depends on the playing style of the player.

A little anarchy at a nation's inception isn't actually a bad thing, IMO. Seems realistic, and maybe even a tad strategic.

A little anarchy at a nation's inception isn't actually a bad thing, IMO. Seems realistic, and maybe even a tad strategic.

Personally it didn´t bother much. Perhaps leaving the favorite civic that each leader has (if available) is a nice option.

Personally it didn´t bother much. Perhaps leaving the favorite civic that each leader has (if available) is a nice option.

I think that a civ's favorite civic (if discovered) is a good starting point. Naturally 5 civics is too much to start with, and it does take a tad away from Egypt's UP.

I kinda like having to go through some anarchy at the start of the game. Seems more realistic to me.

I think it is a good idea to have starting civics. Some thoughts:

Egypt - Monarchy, Slavery
India & China - nothing
Rome, Persia & Greece - Slavery
Japan - I haven't played them, so.... I dunno. I dunno if the Japanese practiced slavery either.
Arabs - Theocracy, Monarchy, Vassalage
Spain - Org Rel, Monarchy, Serfdom
England, Russia, France & Germany - Monarchy, Vassalage, & Serfdom
Inca & Aztecs - Slavery, Monarchy
Mali - ?
Mongols - ?
United States - Free Market, Representation, Slavery

Favorite civic doesn't seem like a bad idea. Give each Civilization ONE civic at the start... but not more than that. Force them to go through anarchy if they want more than that.

Indifferent, I don't mind either way.

SilverKnight

Rome, Persia & Greece - Slavery

That´s nice.

I was going to bring this up. I'm not sure anarchy at the start is a bad thing, but it's sort of ridiculous that a nation like America which was basically founded upon principles precisely parallel to some Civics, starts with the very Civics they're against (more or less). I don't know enough about the political situation in the early years of the Union, but it definately wasn't Despotism, Paganism, and the rest of the starting Civics.
Also, for the first few turns, any city founded by America should start with the religion most dominant in North America at the time, since in reality America was made up of already-civilized people with complex and even innovative world-views, not nomadic agrarial villagers. If England, France, and Spain are in North America as they were historically, and if they're Christian as they were historically (and almost always are in-game), America should be Christian as well. Even if the state doesn't endorse any religion officially.
Speaking of which, shouldn't America start with Liberalism? Isn't that kind of the tech that represents the ideas that America started from (along with Democracy)?

After thinking about this, I think that giving starting civic:
-weakens Egyptian UP
-wouldn't advantage the player or the AI if they want to use different civics

So, no.

Then at least start new civs in Anarchy and force them to choose civics when they start. Do you see how absurd it is for America to be a despotism at start? It can become one later for all I care, but it's supposed to start with certain ideals. That's what made it break off from England.

EDIT: Also, Egypt starts at 3000BC and at that point it is a big bonus to have civics that you can even use at the start, not to mention actually starting on them. With the later civs we're constantly trying to give them the head start they need to reach realistic strength in realistic time. Egypt should be a giant of the ancient world, later bumped down to insignificance by later starters.

Taking Blas' thoughts on America one step further....

America Spawns in 1605. Usually they are behind the 8 ball due to their late start time. They begin with great knowledge and can switch to good civics right away. But to USE those civics and be productive it takes 3 turns of anarchy, as long as the Aztec or European power in north america do not try to take their cities....

While I do not feel that America should begin with 5 historical civics, I do think the least we can do is start them with one or two.

A similar arguement can be made for other nations as well. Considering that nearby cities and units do not always flip to me playing as America they are at a huge disadvantage.

One example is a game where in around 1680 or so the Aztec invaded my young American Empire with around 50 units. While the were only catapults, axemen and some macemen, i could not defeat them, and lost three cities very early on.

As most new civs have to have a change of civics at the start I think it would be sensible to start them in anarchy, and I'm talking of the "newer civs", so Rome, Greece, Persia, Japan shouldn't start with anarchy. This way it doesn't downgrade Egypts UP as well.

mitsho

I tried and unfortunately anarchy at the beginning doesn't allow to choose civics. You would have to wait it settle as the 1st row, and then change again. In other words, it's even worse.

As for assigning starting civics directly, they should also match the available techs, and religions should be never set.
So, it ends up with all (including America) with Hereditary Rule+Slavery, except some with high-upkeep Vassallage and Serfdom (Euro civs) or some even penalized with Despotism (Mongolia)

Is it really worth it?

I really think its fine as it is. I wouldn't waste time with it when you could be doing other things.

Is it really worth it?

convinced!

m

Yeah, focus on other things that have more of an impact on gameplay. People will just have to use a bit of imagination. (Maybe you could change the starting civics to something so generic that they basically say "A civilization without a fully agreed upon government, in transition" or something.)

So can someone please kindly list the expansion civs to be included in 'Rhye's and Fall: Warlords'?
Here is what I think SHOULD be in...
1. Babylon (that is in-the-works and I'm working on it with a couple of members).
2. Vikings.
3. Carthage.
4. Ottomans.

Those were the must haves... as for other civs, I think someone mentioned earlier they will be minor civs.
Celts would really clog-up Europe if they were to be a major civ.
Zulu, I'm not sure what to think about them, however I think we could replace them with the Ethiopians of someother African civ.
Koreans, I really do not think so, small region, small civilization, really un-needed IMO. But again, we could use this slot for another civilization, and here is what I think:
1. Either the Iroqouis, or possibly the addition of an Australian civ, Maori is a name that comes to my mind.

Maori, why? barbarians simulate them well enough, they would really have no chance at being a major player in the game.
Iroquois? Why make the game even harder for the Americans? Although If both would be upped you could have a quick civil war (as both civs appear at the same time) and whoever wins would be bigger, stronger to combat the Europeans and the Aztecs respectively... :)
Koreans. YES, I'm absolutely for them, because this would enlarge the Asian civs, make the game there more interesting and allows for different religious factions in the East. That's also the point why I want the Ashoka leaderhead to represent a Southeastasian civ like the Khmer or the Thai.

...

my two cents, mitshp

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. I also think Korea should be in the game.

Shouldn't this discussion head over here? ;) Don't clutter up two threads with the same topic.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4348623#post4348623

Ottomans are pretty damn important, IMO. Without them, you can't explain how there was little flow of ideas from Europe to China ... and you can't explain just how important that passage around Africa was, or the motivating factor for discovering the new world.

Europe is the most clogged anyway. I wouldn't advocate ditching Spain or something like that, either. To me, the region could still stand to have Holland and Portugal -- those guys were enormously important to the past 500 years of history.

I tried and unfortunately anarchy at the beginning doesn't allow to choose civics. You would have to wait it settle as the 1st row, and then change again. In other words, it's even worse.

As for assigning starting civics directly, they should also match the available techs, and religions should be never set.
So, it ends up with all (including America) with Hereditary Rule+Slavery, except some with high-upkeep Vassallage and Serfdom (Euro civs) or some even penalized with Despotism (Mongolia)

Is it really worth it?

I see your point. There are other things that we need you concentrate on at this point.