A modcomp for Beyond the Sword: Rhye's and Fall of Civilization

Updated 4th Aug 07: favourite civics for China-Qin Shi Huang, China-'Wang Kon' and China-Mao changed.


Compared to vanilla civ, RFC focuses much more on countries rather than their leaders. Therefore I don't think the current batch of favourite civics is best for RFC. Here, I have a created an alternative set of favourites which will encourage the AI to simulate the historical governmental trends of the various civs. Where a civ has multiple leaders, I have assumed each leader to represent an era of that civ's history, rather than the leader itself. For example, Rome-Caesar represents early Rome (i.e. the Republic) while Augustus represents later Rome (the Empire).

Here's the new favourite choices anyway...

Suggestions and criticism are welcome.

France-Lous: hereditary rule
France-napolean: bureaucracy (because of the overwhelming dominance of Paris and the power of the French state)
France-deGaulle: universal suffrage
England-Elizabeth: representation (parliament's long and unbroken power; historically disntinguished from other European powers by its semi-democratic government)
England-Victoria: free market (became the most powerful opponent of protectionism. Fought the opium wars to force China to open its market)
England-Churchill: universal suffrage (only European power to remain a democracy through the 20th century)
Germany-otto: hereditary rule
Germany-frederick: vassalge
Germany-bismark: nationhood (has always been famous for skilled military; maybe vassalage instead?)
Spain: theocracy (spanish inquisition, prowess of conquisidators, stbongly religion-influenced foreign policy)
Rome-Julius: representation (representing early Rome)
Rome-Augustus: vassalage (emphasis on military service)
Rome-Justinian/Byzantium: theocracy (religion a big part of its identity and foreign policy)
Russia-Peter: serfdom (defining feature of imperial Russia)
Russia-Catherine: hereditary rule (long absolutism of the tsars)
Russia-Stalin: state property (USSR)
Arabia: theocracy (the Caliphate's theocratic rule and military might)
Persia-Cyrus: vassalage (fielded a massive army)
Persia-Darius: organized religion (importance of zoroastrianism Very skilled and prolific craftsmen producing many grand cities, buildings and designs, e.g. Darius' religious/administrative centre in Persepolis, Nebuchadnezzar's hanging gardens and Sennacherib's rennowned improvements to Ninevah)
India-asoka: Caste System (a defining part of its historical culture)
India-gandhi: universal suffrage (its stable democracy marks it out from other developing countries)
China-qin shi huang: hereditary rule (the divinely ordained right to rule of the Sons of Heaven)
China-[Wan Kon leaderhead]: bureaucracy (the emperors ruled through the highly trained and erudite mandarins)
China-mao: police state (was state property, but then lack of democracy has been a more consistent feature of modern Chinese government than state property)
Japan: mercantalism (long period of strict isolation)
Eygpt-hatshepsut: hereditary rule (the power and veneration of the pharoahs)
Egypt-Ramses: bureaucracy (egypt founded a sophisticated bureaucracy)
Mali: free market (enormous wealth through trade)
USA-Washington: representation
USA-Lincoln: representation
USA-Roosevelt: universal suffrage
Aztecs: slavery (many sacrifices, slaves and grand projects)
Incas: bureaucracy (sophisticated civil service and ability to organise huge numbers. serfdom would also be a good choice.)
Mongolia-ghengis khan: vassalage (ability to field huge elite army)
Mongolia-kublay khan: vassalge
Greece-Pericles: representation (birthplace of democracy; specialists producing extra science points suits the city states)
Greece-Alexander: vassalage
Carthage: representation (had a senate)
Portugal: organized religion (importance of catholicism) )
Netherlands: free market (the powerful Dutch merchant class opposed restrictions on trade, spearheaded modern capitalism, and built up an empire focussed upon profit.)
Turkey-mehmed: hereditary rule
Turkey-suleiman: vassalge
Maya: hereditary rule (maya society and economy was entirely centred upon the king)
Vikings: emancipation (denmark was the first country to abolish slavery I believe)
Khmer: organized religion (many great religious buildings)
Ethiopia: theocracy

This results in a much more diverse range of favourites:

GOVERNMENT
Police State 1
Hereditary Rule 8
Representation 5
Universal Suffrage 4

LEGAL
Bureaucracy 4
Vassalage 7
Nationhood 1
Free Speech 0

LABOUR
Slavery 1
Serfdom 1
Caste System 1
Emancipation 1

ECONOMY
Free market 3
State Property 1
Mercantalism 1
Environmentalism 0

RELIGION
Organised Religion 3
Theocracy 4
Pacifism 0
Free Religion 0

Civs don't keep their favourite civics whatever the cost so I don't think we need to worry about India-Asoka and the Aztecs crippling themselves when emancipation kicks in.

Instructions

1) Copy CIV4LeaderHeadInfos.xml
2) Go to your Rhye's and Fall of Civilization/Assets/XML/Civilizations folder
3) Paste CIV4LeaderHeadInfos.xml, replacing the original files

Nice idea and nicely thought out changes

You forgot Justinian ( he is a late roman leader ) and a medieval one for China ( that uses the Wang Kon Graphics ).

Nice list Lumpthing.

You forgot Justinian ( he is a late roman leader )

"Byzantium: theocracy (big part of its identity and foreign policy)"

Remember the preferences are linked to the leader rather than the civ.

Thanks for pointing that out Edungeon. As Phallus pointed out, Justinian is already in; but I have made that clearer now and edited Wang Kon's favourite civic.

China's favourite civics now go like this: hereditary rule > bureaucracy > police state

Vikings should have slavery. Slaves were a big part of their trade goods.

I don't understand why I need to add this.

Vikings should have slavery. Slaves were a big part of their trade goods.
Yes but the 'Viking' civ always outlasts the Viking age. So I consider them to represent the Scandinavians.

I don't understand why I need to add this.
eh? You don't need to add this. The only reason you would want to add this is if, like me, your dissatisfied with the current favourite civics and would prefer ones that better reflect history. If you prefer the current favourite civics to these suggestions then there is no reason to add it.

I would make some changes:
Lincoln: Emancipation, as it fits his historic role, and differentiates himself from Washington. It was a hugely important debate for much of American history.

Kublai Kahn: Free Religion, the Mongols were quite good when it comes to religious tolerance, and you can't not give Ghengis a military refereance. Once again differentiates the two leaders.

Cyrus: I would sugest changeing on persian to create a difference (and Zoroastrianism wasn't all that powerful in teh time of either leader, AFAIK). Cyrus would be good for more militaristic civic (the vast expansion of Persia), though I don;t know whihc one. At the same time, you might consider freedom of religion from Cyrus returning the Jews to Israel, or Darius completing the Second Temple.

Is Catherine listed twice for a reason?
I believe it is because there should be a different Russian leader (I believe Peter) which I would want to then replace one fav civic.
Either could work good for Serfdom, not only filling an empty spot, but an important part of Russian history. I would probably give this to Peter.

One English should be changed to prevent duplication within a civ:
Elizabeth: Organized religion (seperating the Church of England from Rome, again), Mercantalism (the core of the early British Empire)
Victoria: Free Market (Adam Smith and laissez-faire during the later period of the British Empire) this is my favourite

Thanks for your ideas.

I'll start by saying I think you've missed an important pat of my civic choices: they represent the choices of a whole country for the era which that leader represents in civ. So Stalin's favourite civic represents Russia's government style for most of the 20th Century and all of the 21st Century, not Stalin's government style. I'll also say that it's very easy for anyone to mod their own personal choices, which is all this modcomp is after all.

Lincoln: Remember, Lincoln's favourite civic does not represent Lincoln's government in my mod, but the government of the USA for the period when RFC is using Lincoln's leader, mostly the 19th Century. Looked at from this perspective, the USA wasn't the first to adopt emancipation. Also, all the civilizations are going to choose emancipation, because of the unhappiness penalty. I'd rather choose a civic which will actually make America more distinctive. I think representation was the most fundamental characteristic of the American government which marked it out from other governments. After all America is the quintessential champion of democracy.

Kublai Khan: Okay this is a nice idea, I will look into later Mongol history and decide. Although the problem with freedom of religion is that it is a later-game tech, so it cannot represent the tolerant policies of governments in the pre-renaissance age.

Cryus and Darius: Yep I don't know much about Persian history to be honest, but the effects of organized religion seem to produce the kinds of stuff Persia was good at (i.e. great buildings etc). From what little I know this seems more distinctively Persian than a vast army or great military prowess. But like I say I don't much about it, so maybe one vassalage and one organized religion is best.

Russia: yeah I agree I will make Peter serfdom (and yes the second Catherine should have been Peter)

England: again I'm talking about countries, not particular leaders here. Overall I don't think England was any more mercantalist than any other nation, whereas Renaissance onwards England had a very strong parliament, which marked it out from other European powers. I also considered Free Market for Victoria-England, but then I thought the representation element of British government of this period was more long-lasting and stable than the free market policies.

I think my main flaw is that I am not exactly certain how leaders work in RFC (I have a good idea, but not definite). But AFAIK there is little diffference between leaders, which is why I would like to see different favourite civics for the leaders of the same nation.

For Persia, under Cyrus it became the largest Empire in the world, a tremendous rise in power, especially through his military campaigns.

For Lincoln, during the first three quarters of the 19th Century, emancipation was usually the most important political question in the US. Yes, emancipation itself was a small thing that happened, but with the decades and decades of debate over the issue, and it being a significant cause of the civil war, I would think that historically it is important enough. Now, if there was a gameplay reason that would be something completely different.

Kublai is an excellent point I never thought of.

For Victoria, I would argue the opposite. Representation was firmly entrenched earlier, and I don't think it was a significant part of the British in the time period. meanwhile the shift from a Mercantile Empire to laissez-faire, Free Market, ideals, led by people like Adam Smith, had a major impact throughout Britain and the World.

Very nice. I'll say one thing though: you concentrate too much on the political, for example, yes Britain has had a long tradition of representation/democracy but I'd say under both Elizabeth and Victoria their "favourite" civic should be something emphasising trade or empire-building. Just a thought.

Looked at from this perspective, the USA wasn't the first to adopt emancipation.
Yup, third to last right behind Brazil and Puerto Rico.


For Lincoln, during the first three quarters of the 19th Century, emancipation was usually the most important political question in the US. Yes, emancipation itself was a small thing that happened, but with the decades and decades of debate over the issue, and it being a significant cause of the civil war, I would think that historically it is important enough. Now, if there was a gameplay reason that would be something completely different.


Now I have to disagree with that. There is no way the Emancipation of Slaves was the most important issue in the United States in the 19th Century. To some people it probally was but not a lot. The biggest issue was deciding if there should be strong Federal government or a strong State government. It's just like when people say we fought the Civil War to free the Slaves if that was true why would six Slave States stay with the Union?

The netherlands free religion? I would go for free market. For most of the dutch history what religion you where made all the differance in social live and standing. The dutch independence war, was mostly a religious civil war. Chatolics where the ones who losed, and hence treated as second rank people in the netherlands. There was a time they where forbidden to practice there religion. This seperation between chatolics and the various sects of protestantisme, didn't dissapear till the late 1960's.

The netherlands free religion? I would go for free market. For most of the dutch history what religion you where made all the differance in social live and standing. The dutch independence war, was mostly a religious civil war. Chatolics where the ones who losed, and hence treated as second rank people in the netherlands. There was a time they where forbidden to practice there religion. This seperation between chatolics and the various sects of protestantisme, didn't dissapear till the late 1960's.

Yes but in Civ inter-Christian conflict is not represented. The only religious differences that are simulated are those between the world religions. The Dutch empire was the least interested out of all the European empires in propagating Christianity. However, its not like those of other religions had equal status to the Christian Dutch within the empire, so maybe Free Market is a better idea.

I've updated the file with the following changes:
Persia-Cyrus: vassalage
England-Victoria: free market
Russia-Peter: serfdom
Netherlands: free market

Pericles is gone by the time Representation is discovered. Also Julius Caesar is missing. Is this intentional. I would suggest an expansion civic, seeing as he expanded and ceated many client kingdoms for Rome.

I referred to Julius Caesar simply as 'Caesar'. I will edit it to make things clearer. Unfortunately he has the same problem as Pericles - his favourite civic is Representation, civ which he can never implement without the Pyramids. What expansion civic do you suggest? Vassalage is the obvious choice but I'm a bit weary of that because so many older civs already have it. Hmm :/

The pyramids in rhye and fall work different. It counts as having monuments in all cities.

I referred to Julius Caesar simply as 'Caesar'. I will edit it to make things clearer. Unfortunately he has the same problem as Pericles - his favourite civic is Representation, civ which he can never implement without the Pyramids. What expansion civic do you suggest? Vassalage is the obvious choice but I'm a bit weary of that because so many older civs already have it. Hmm :/


Perhaps viceroyalty, due to his protection of Rome's client kingdom. He made many. Client kingdoms were similar to vassals in Civ. maybe another would work better. On a related note, why not make Joa II or Willem van Oranje into resettlement, due to vast colonial emires, all far from their homeland.

Ive deliberately avoided making expansion civics into preferred civics because I think its important that the AI chooses expansion civics purely in terms of game mechanics. With the other civics, they all have advantages and disadvantages, whatever your situation, but with the expansion civics, you only want the civic that maximises your stability accoding to game situation.

Lumpthing: Very nice idea. I too am tired of seeing for instance Mao's China turn into a theocracy and almost every government in Hereditary Rule as late as the 20th-21st century. I think civics should play a more prominent role in the game so that political alliances can be formed based on what policies your government advocates and not just on proximity to your borders or state religion.

What would really be great if each civ had a LEAST favorite civic as well as a favorite one so we could avoid situations where it is painfully obvious that a certain civic simply just does not fit it either with the leader's style or the historical epoch that the world is now in.

Your leader traits are pretty much on target except that for Caesar and Pericles, Representation is already well past the ancient era. Disappointing that there wasn't an Early Republic civic in the game for that era.

I agree with not having Lincoln's fav civic be Emancipation; Nationhood might also be a possibility you might wanna consider.

Lastly, on Arabia I always found it a little sad how people automatically put their civic as theocracy when ancient Arabia was much less of a theocracy than say, it is in modern times. For example, Islamic Spain was home to 3 religions (Islam, Chrisitianity, Judaism) that lived in relative peace and all believers were allowed to practice their faith without oppression. Compare that to Christian Spain which brought in the Inquisition and forced Muslims and Jews to either convert or be kicked out. But I digress, it is a game after all.

Nice work!

Regarding Caesar: the only early civic I think remotely fits is slavery. Since he, you know, enslaved half of Gaul. I also thing Bureaucracy would be much more appropriate for Augustus, since he created the foundations of rule by an Imperial equestrian bureaucracy over senatorial offices. I wasn't aware he put more emphasis on military service than any other Roman leader either.

Lastly, on Arabia I always found it a little sad how people automatically put their civic as theocracy when ancient Arabia was much less of a theocracy than say, it is in modern times. For example, Islamic Spain was home to 3 religions (Islam, Chrisitianity, Judaism) that lived in relative peace and all believers were allowed to practice their faith without oppression. Compare that to Christian Spain which brought in the Inquisition and forced Muslims and Jews to either convert or be kicked out. But I digress, it is a game after all.
That doesn't change the fact that the Caliphates were an explicitly Islamic institution; claiming legitimacy from their 'descent' from Muhammed, in the same way the Pope claims legitimacy from his descent from St Peter, and governed by Islamic law. Perhaps the real issue is that in modern times theocracy is rightly or wrongly automatically thought to be an overly repressive system of government.

Lumpthing: Very nice idea. I too am tired of seeing for instance Mao's China turn into a theocracy and almost every government in Hereditary Rule as late as the 20th-21st century.
Unfortunately this modcomp won't stop modern China from going theocratic (that would require proper hacking, beyond my knowledge) but it should drastically reduce the number of monarchies in the modern age.


Your leader traits are pretty much on target except that for Caesar and Pericles, Representation is already well past the ancient era. Disappointing that there wasn't an Early Republic civic in the game for that era.
You're quite right, don't know why that didn't occur to me. Do you have any suggestions for replacements?

I agree with not having Lincoln's fav civic be Emancipation; Nationhood might also be a possibility you might wanna consider.


Lastly, on Arabia I always found it a little sad how people automatically put their civic as theocracy when ancient Arabia was much less of a theocracy than say, it is in modern times. For example, Islamic Spain was home to 3 religions (Islam, Chrisitianity, Judaism) that lived in relative peace and all believers were allowed to practice their faith without oppression. Compare that to Christian Spain which brought in the Inquisition and forced Muslims and Jews to either convert or be kicked out. But I digress, it is a game after all.
I did hesitate on making Arabia like theocracy for precisely the reason you mention. In the end though I felt theocracy was more appropriate for Arabia's 'historical mission' in RFC because of the XP bonuses to units. After all, Arabia did have a very formidable army and was very expansionistic, and both traits were inspired by its faith. Theocracy is obviously the best civic for simulating that. Of course its true that the Caliphate was also the home of many great buildings and universities and so forth, so Organized Religion would also fit. But I think overall, RFC Arabia should be focussed more on military expansion than peaceful building.

Regarding Caesar: the only early civic I think remotely fits is slavery. Since he, you know, enslaved half of Gaul. I also thing Bureaucracy would be much more appropriate for Augustus, since he created the foundations of rule by an Imperial equestrian bureaucracy over senatorial offices. I wasn't aware he put more emphasis on military service than any other Roman leader either.
Okay I really need to make this clearer because people keep misunderstanding it. This modcomp is not meant to be about particular leaders, but about the civ during the entire era in which it is, in RFC, led by the leader. So Julius's favourite civic does not represent Julius's favourite civic but rather that of the early Roman Empire while Augustus' favourite civic does not represent Augustus' favourite civic but rather that of the later Roman Empire. With that in mind, do you still think that the civic preferences should be changed? I only have a vague awareness of Roman history so I'm very open to suggestions from people who are more clued-up on it than me.

Vassalage for Rome (or Viceroyality) is just plainly wrong, that you apply it to leaders or to civs. Bureocracy for the Augustian age is much better, and for Julius Caesar the only one that makes sense is Despotism (since Representation is not available). I also think that you could give some kind of bonus to Despotism, this was the most widely used "civic" in the ancient age by the mediterranean civs (except Egypt), and putting it on the same level of Barbarism or Paganism is not very accurate.

I'll happily change Rome-Augustus to bureaucracy but I'm not going to make Despotism anybody's favourite civic, because it makes no sense in game terms and I don't want to do any modding beyond favourite civics. I prefer to think of civ-'Despotism' as meaning rule by a single person but without all the ritual, respected traditions and balance of power of 'Hereditary Rule' which makes the latter a more stable and effective form of government. I know that's not the historical meaning of the word 'Despotism' but I think it makes more sense like that in the context of what it is in civ. Any other suggestions for Rome-Julius? I could just make it bureaucracy as well.

The main reason I chose vassalage for Rome is that Rome should be an uber warmonger civ - able to control a vast, elite army. So although the term 'vassalage' may not be appropriate for Rome, the effects certainly are.

Subjugation may work better, but I forgot when is it availabe. Slavery for Rome also makes sense.
Have you considered that what you are thinking will disadvantage civs with more than one leader, because they will want to switch and this will cause
1) Anarchy
2) Instability

I guess for Ceasar your going to have to do hereditary rule.

I know this doesnt fit the republic from 500 BC to 50ish BC, but it does fit the Roman kingdom from 750BC to 500BC and rise and fall starts Rome at 800BC.

Also its fits Julius the Character although I understand this is nt what your aiming for.

I dont see that any of the other traits are likely to be usable by Julius.

I also dont like the Emancipation for Ragnar, the Vikings/Scandinavians really need another leader here. But i suppose it fits the countries and it obviously doesnt have any effect till later in the game.

I also think nationhood would suit Napoleon better. Surely the French revolution had a huge effect on the modern idea of a nations. Also Napoleon the conscripted vast armies to help in his conquests of Europe.

Surely this would fit this period of the game better and help give Napoleon some teeth.

also you've got 4 bureaucracies and only one nationhood so far.

Also I agree with keep Kublai as vassalage. Although it might not fit his personality the Mongols were first and for most conquerors. The timeframe between Genghis and Kublai is also very small. So it makes to try and help the mongols keep a large army so they can continue their conquests.

Japan should have a few more. After Europeans came it went through some dynamic situations


Japan-Kamakura: Vassalage (Ancient, Classica, Feudal and Early Sengoku ages)
Japan-Tokugowa: Caste System or Mercantilism (Late Sengoku and Tokugowa Age)
Japan-Meiji: Theocracy (Meiji Restoration age)
Japan-Showa: Pacifism

I had thought to add:
Japan-Fujiwara: Mercantilism (for Ancient & Classical ages) to represent the more isolationist policy, but Japan already would have 4 leaders with this, more than some larger civs.

Tokugowa: Both represent appropriate aspects. Caste system does better since Japan did still trade somewhat, however Caste System allows scientists which is not what happened in this era.
-----------
Turkey-Mustafa: Representation (End of Ottoman Empire)
-----------
Vikings: Sorry, emancipation is not what they should have. They captured others to make slaves, not those born as a Viking.

Viking-Lief: Nationhood
Viking-Canute: Free Market

Lief is used as one of the more world-reknown vikings. This would be early era exapansionist, pludering vikings. Canute represents the age after great pluderings.
----------
Carthage: Free Market. They were the trade empire before Rome took them out. Only though if they can actually achieve the prereq.
----------
Portugal-Garcia: Nationhood
Portugal-Henry: Mercantilism
Portugal-Salazar: Representation

Each of these represents 4 major points of Portugese history as best as the Civis allow. Nationhood is when they were still fighting to establish their right to exist against Spain and Moors, Mercanltiism is when they began to discover and become an empire. Portugal Charles represents the period of modern portugal (save for Charles monarchy) in the aftermath of their crumbling empire.
-----------
Spain-Alfonso: Herditary Rule
Spain-Isabel: Organised Religion
or Theocracy
Spain-Phillip: Theocracy

Alfonoso represents the Castiltian timeperiod during which time, like Portugal, Castile had to fight a lot of the time for it's right to exist. Isabel represents the formation of Spain itself and more stable period. Both OR and Theocracy are appropriate for this era, so not sure which is best. They wanted to have tight control on religion, but at the same time, they also wanted to spread it easily to pagans.
-----------
Egypt-Fatimid: Theocracy

After arab conquest, incase eqypt survives it has a more representative civic.
-----------
USA-Washington: Representation
USA-Lincoln: Emancipation
USA-Rosevelt: Nationhood or Bureaucracy
USA-Eisenhower: Free Market

Washington is fine. Lincoln is known for Emancipation, even though nationhood would be better. Rosevelt (I assume you mean Franklin) was known for wartime efforts and Great deal to bring the USA out of the Great Depression. Eisenhower is best to counterbalance Stalin which is what the Cold War was based upon, at least superficially. If you mean Theodore Rosevelt, then Environmentalism should be used, though it's not appropriate really for his reasonings.

Umm, the idea here had no leaders being added, just ones already in use by RFC.

That doesn't change the fact that the Caliphates were an explicitly Islamic institution; claiming legitimacy from their 'descent' from Muhammed, in the same way the Pope claims legitimacy from his descent from St Peter, and governed by Islamic law. Perhaps the real issue is that in modern times theocracy is rightly or wrongly automatically thought to be an overly repressive system of government.

But in Civ a part of the theocratic civic is that "no other religions are allowed to spread" which implies that there is a degree of oppression going on. OR still gives a strong religious connotation and gives the civ a bonus for building which might reflect the the rapid growth and development of influential cities that fell to Islam and the inspiration it gave to many people.

You're quite right, don't know why that didn't occur to me. Do you have any suggestions for replacements?

I think HR might be a good fit to represent the monarchies of the Roman Kingdom during the early era if you want to represent a specific epoch plus Caesar did represent the fall of the Republic in many ways so this is arguably accurate on two counts.



I did hesitate on making Arabia like theocracy for precisely the reason you mention. In the end though I felt theocracy was more appropriate for Arabia's 'historical mission' in RFC because of the XP bonuses to units. After all, Arabia did have a very formidable army and was very expansionistic, and both traits were inspired by its faith. Theocracy is obviously the best civic for simulating that. Of course its true that the Caliphate was also the home of many great buildings and universities and so forth, so Organized Religion would also fit. But I think overall, RFC Arabia should be focussed more on military expansion than peaceful building.
.

That makes sense; Arabia was very expansionist and although their appeal was not because of arms alone (early Islam, like early Christianity had a powerful social justice message that appealed to many people. Also, it contained more rights for women than was permitted in many cultures. Of course this doesn't mean equality; obviously men were still viewed more favorably and given more rights.) it does undoubtedly help them in achieving their UHV.

Slavery for Rome also makes sense.
Have you considered that what you are thinking will disadvantage civs with more than one leader, because they will want to switch and this will cause
1) Anarchy
2) Instability

What this man says.

Umm, the idea here had no leaders being added, just ones already in use by RFC.
Okay...thought that was the idea.

Anyway, even if that's the case, Carthage and Japan should be changed.

Carthage was first and foremost a trade empire and it should be reflected by that.

Japan wasn't really mercantilistic except in response to European pressure. Most of it's civilization's history it was more profiteering than anything, and trade, along with piracy, brought profit.

Caste System works best for Japan except modern times (post WW2-era). Vassalage works well until Meiji Restoration as well.

USA is also still not good as well. Washington is fine. Represenation is okay. Lincoln should change to Emancipation as that is what the war ultimately brought about and was his legacy. Rosevelt...I think Rep or Free Religion is best.

Vikings: again, they did not abolish slavery for everyone. They often took women when raiding to use as personal sex slaves to bear stong Viking warriors. Nationhood or Free Market is better.

Portugal: Mercantilism is better. Religion was important, but not so much as in its history as finding and securing trade routes.

Subjugation may work better, but I forgot when is it availabe. Slavery for Rome also makes sense.
Have you considered that what you are thinking will disadvantage civs with more than one leader, because they will want to switch and this will cause
1) Anarchy
2) Instability

Possibly, but in my experience RFC civs are not nearly as fixated on their favourite civics as they are in standard civ. I think Rhye has made it so that they will only switch civics if it is safe stability-wise to do so.

I think HR might be a good fit to represent the monarchies of the Roman Kingdom during the early era if you want to represent a specific epoch plus Caesar did represent the fall of the Republic in many ways so this is arguably accurate on two counts.





That makes sense; Arabia was very expansionist and although their appeal was not because of arms alone (early Islam, like early Christianity had a powerful social justice message that appealed to many people. Also, it contained more rights for women than was permitted in many cultures. Of course this doesn't mean equality; obviously men were still viewed more favorably and given more rights.) it does undoubtedly help them in achieving their UHV.

Too bad the religion didn't develop much after Mohammed's death.

Also, how about Nationhood for Japan? What effect the term favorite civic often has is political benefits (when two civs share a common policy) and figuring in its time Vassalage is probably the only Legal civic available, this would instabilize the political world around the Japanese. Although Japan is isolationalistic as it is, I think Vassalage would make all the other civs appear too "approachable" to Japanese when there are no other choises for any other legal civic available.
And regarding Mercantilism, it just kills Japan's economy in the long run and fails to change in the modern times - probably because Japan never develops far enough.

So how about Nationhood? It would portray the isolationalistic nature of Japan until the later times and would encourage it to build its military in the times of Hirohito. I think Japan should have at least two leaders because of its vast political difference in the feudal times and after the Meiji restoration, and right now only one leader can represent Japan. Worse yet, he's probably the most known shogun of the feudal times.

Even though this belongs to the Changes You've Made To The XML thread, anyone know how to make Tokugawa religionally less stuck up? Most often Tokugawa is either Confucian or Buddhist and will disregard every other religion, which destroys most chances for any politically rewarding relations he might have. Japan has had "heathen" allies before and after Tokugawa's time, no?

nationhood isn't good one for Japan if we take the large scope. It took a threat as great as an overwhelming invasion to unite Japan and did not occur until very late in the game. Japan's feudal era lasted longer than any other.

As for religion, both of those seem fine, although they should sometimes embrace Taoism and lesser Christianity. Don't know how to do that though.

It's actually good to point out that for Lincoln, I found out from a reply that I had on another topic that Abe Lincoln was more of a Police State as he abolished Habeus Corpeus and had an iron fist governing america during the civil war

... But it clearly wasn't a police state.

First time poster, with some issues with your choices. I love the idea. I'm a histroy nut who has sometimes been exasperated with the favourite civics. But some of these suggestions don't quite match the historical personalities either, or would really cramp gameplay.

Napoleon -- Bureaucracy. Better than Representation (he was a dictator.) But, since he tried to build a europe-wide empire, a civic that limits your city count might not be best. He more than anyone popularised French Nationhood politically, and regularised the army and state.

Elizabeth -- Representation. Actually, he was renowned for increasing the personal power of the monarch. Furthermore, her Parliaments were largely aristocratic. The HoC was not very powerful. Free Religion is better, as her tolerance of Catholics and dissenters was rare in Europe.

Victoria -- Free Market. Actually, her PMs (in the UK and Dominions) were a mixed bag of Empirial Marketers (closer to what Mercantilism represents in the game) and Free Marketers. UK didn't go free market until late in her reign, and she had personal reservations about it. I liked her at Representation, because she's one of the few legitimate represenatives of this style of government.

Rome, Julius - Representative. I hate this. He was dictator for life, and did away with Republican freedoms. Here's a switch up that fills a gap -- Ceasar was in a line of leaders who switched the Roman economy from one that was primarily driven by freehold citizens to one driven by slave labour. Make his favourite civic Slavery. Far more representative of his leadership, and Rome during his rule.

Rome, Augustus -- Vassalage. No. There was no concept of Lord and Vassal in Rome until the middle ages. Someone said Viceroyalty. I like that, if its possible. Perhaps police state (which is what his rule was?) After all, Fascism (prereq tech) was based on Roman values exemplified by Augustus.

Hatshepsut -- Hereditary Rule. Strictly speaking she was outside the hereditary line. Better at Organised Religion, as she was famous for trying to organise a new one, and the strict religious laws were big motivators for building culture in Egypt. Hered. Rule better for Ramses. But Bureaucracy works for him too. Still, his legal systems were closer to vassalage lord-serf relationships. Slavery works too.

Netherlands -- Free Market. No. They did not have one. They were Mercantilists during William the Silent's leadership, and later, excluding others' from their trade. Free Religion was the defining trait of the Dutch Republic. The revolution was fought over religious freedom. Representation works as well, as their government was based on regional representation. Free Market really doesn't.

Asoka -- Caste system. That's a Hindu thing. Asoka was Bhuddist. And he really is THE free religion leader with the most cred in the game.

Other than that, I love the rest of it. I particularily like what you've done with Churchill and the Aztecs, far better for them then their defaults.

Hi Le1bn1z, welcome to civfanatics and thank you for your thoughts.

However I think you misunderstood my idea. The favorite civics are meant to represent the favorite civics of the civilizations for the period of time when that particular is leader in Rhye's and Fall, not the historical leaders.

So for example, in RFC Elizabeth I is RFC-England's leader until about 1800 – over 1,000 years of history, not just the reign of one queen. So Elizabeth I's favorite civic represents England's favorite civic until around 1800, not Elizabeth I's favorite civic. For most of that period, Representation is unavailable so it makes no difference. However when Representation does become available England will be likely to choose it. I think this is realistic because from about 1630 England's government was characterized by a very strong parliament compared to other nations. If it were about England's favorite civic during the reign of Elizabeth I I would 100% agree with your comments.

Perhaps you could revise you comments with the civs, not the leaders, in mind.

just a thought the countries in modern scandinavia are very eco-friendly compared to my country the USA. finnish shiping is very eco-friendly they did not use styrofoam in the package I got from finland they used a diffrent thing