So far I have counted that there are 27 playable civ out of the 34 in BTS. The 7 that is not included are Native Americans, Byzantine, HRE, Zulu, Korea, Celtia and Sumeria. Of these 7, I understand that HRE, Celtia, Byzantine and Sumeria are not good candiates, because both Europe and the Middle East are very occupied. However Native Americans, Zulu and maybe Korea should be playable. If NA is added (maybe change the name to Sious, Iroquois?), it will probably be easier for the Aztec and Maya civs as this increase the potential trading partners. I think Zulu should also be added, and that would decrease the number of barbarians that swarm the African continents (which makes civs like Mali, Ethiopa and Egypt easier to play). Korea can also be added, but maybe increase the Korean penisula a bit, or allow them to expand at Manchuria(?), which adds another civ to the Asian continent. This addition will add to 30 playable civs.

What do you all think of this suggestion?

If im not mistaken the natives represent some of those factions except Korea, i think if a civ should be added it should be Korea but i doubt Rhye will add any civs.

I think that Rhye doesnt want to add any more civs because if he does, the game will slow down so much it will be unplayable in the late game. That's why the minor civs are meant to represent the others that didnt make it into the game.

If there are any ideas on new areas for natives/minor civs to spawn, then I'm sure rhye would consider it

On that subject, don't you think there should be a small native presence in australia? not something that would make it impossible to settle, perhaps a few spearmen?

Rhye has said that the Zulu aren't in because they would be too far beind their neighbours technologically (the Native Americans at least having time alone to build up before the technologically advanced civs appear).

Korea would be a one city civ, without much chance to colonize, with 3 very powerful neighbours (Chinese, Japanese, and Mongols, heck in my game the Persians razed independant Korea). Now I would like them to be playable, but I don't think they would be feasable.

HRE is represented by Germany in game.

Native Americans would have to be changed in to a particular tribe. to be added, they would be even worse that Greece.

All of this is moot though, since no more civs will be added, since it will slow the game down significantly (according to others the slowdown is exponential, rather than linear).

Celtia and Byzantine are, in fact, included. They're just not playable.

Byzantine is only in the 600 AD start, taking the place of the celts.

How would the slowdown be exponential?

I actually have nothing against Native Americans being added in. I had actually hoped they would have been added in originally instead of just being a bunch of wandering units. The myth that native americans were -all- nomadic people has been debunked by archaeological evidence numerous times... they had a few nicely sized and sophisticated cities, especially in the American south. And the USA fought a few good wars with them too before they eventually lost.

BTW I say ALL because some were wanderers, especially those in Canada--with the exception of the west coast, which had a good amount of villages, and still does today. In fact there's one native town in western Canada that's 1400 years old, and is still inhabited, but I forgot the name of it.

BTW I say ALL because some were wanderers, especially those in Canada
There is no real North/South division, they are more East/West. The Iroquois, Huron and Cherokee were some of the most advanced Native tribes north of Mexico, all along the East coast. The west coast also had many settlements. The nomadic groups were primarily from teh praries, follow the buffalo, though many groups had seperate summer and winter lands that was the extent of it. Not to say this is universal, there were Nomadic Woodlands tribes and probably settled plains tribes.
The thing is, a "Native American" civ really doesn't fit the game. A Iroquois, Cherokee, Cree, or the like civ would be much better

Rhye said (and I agree):

RFC tries to "replay" history as close as it can¨, but not being a simulation. Now, gameplay wise, if you put a civ in North America, it will grow big cities all over the place. Of course, it will be backwards, but the European didn't conquer North America, they SETTLED it.. Putting a civ into NA would be completley ahistorical from a gameplay point of view.

Korea has no place as already has been said (but then I wonder how the Mayans had room...)

Zulu just appear to late, no way for them to win the game... besides a UHV like "don't get your ass kicked by the English" isn't quite a burner...

m

The myth that native americans were -all- nomadic people has been debunked by archaeological evidence numerous times... they had a few nicely sized and sophisticated cities, especially in the American south. And the USA fought a few good wars with them too before they eventually lost.

There are as many evidences as of the existance of UFOs or Atlantis. They aren't exactly what a serious historian would call evidences, plus historians themselves around the world disagree on the conclusions about such "evidences". There are evidences of pre "Native American" civs like for example the Anasazi but we know too little about them to think of a civ, a UU, a UB and 3 UHV conditions, and they were not anywhere north of New Mexico AFAIK.

There are as many evidences as of the existance of UFOs or Atlantis. They aren't exactly what a serious historian would call evidences, plus historians themselves around the world disagree on the conclusions about such "evidences". There are evidences of pre "Native American" civs like for example the Anasazi but we know too little about them to think of a civ, a UU, a UB and 3 UHV conditions, and they were not anywhere north of New Mexico AFAIK.

Woah, that is possibly the most ignorant post I have ever read in my life on this forum. The 'evidence' isn't all circumstantial or transparent like the UFOs or Atlantic examples you so rudely stated.

Acoma Pueblo - An native town that still stands today, and was built in the 11th/12th century, with numerous smaller towns around it making a total early population of a few thousand.

Cahokia - A city in modern Illinois--yes, that is north of new mexico--that flourished in 1200AD, and had an estimated peak population of over 40,000 people. There's an incredible amount of evidence there that there once stood a fairly well established city in this spot that survived for over 500 years, from evidence of mass agriculture, and settlement debris, to a very large square area of land that was made flat to build the city on. Not to mention the mammoth burial mounds present around the site.

Laguna Pueblo - Another town of nearly 10,000 inhabitants that still stands today--though in total ruin.

Anyways there's many other locations that I can list that are obvious examples of non-nomadic native americans with established early city states. And we know much more about the Anasazi than you're stating. Heck, the impressive agricultural systems that the Anasazi had established to allow them to survive in populations in the tens of thousands in the middle of the desert should show that they had something going; the irrigation canals still stand today, and can be easily seen by anyone.

I know when compared to other civilizations, it isn't as impressive. But simply acting like all of north america, apart from Mexico, was just a vast open plain with a few nomadic tribes wandering around, like this mod is, isn't anyway to act. Even the Zulu get a few cities.. why doesn't Cahokia pop up too?

Rhye said (and I agree):

RFC tries to "replay" history as close as it can¨, but not being a simulation. Now, gameplay wise, if you put a civ in North America, it will grow big cities all over the place. Of course, it will be backwards, but the European didn't conquer North America, they SETTLED it.. Putting a civ into NA would be completley ahistorical from a gameplay point of view.

If Rhye wants to go for historical accuracy, he could fix this problem easily. The small pox epidemic has been greatly downgraded in the latest editions, but I think this was done to make it possible to win with the three native civilizations already present. In reality the real epidemic killed about 90% of the native population. If this were done realistically, then every city in the Americas would drop to just 1 population, with a very weak military, within a few turns of meeting Europe. This would be historically realistic. A huge factor in the native american defeat was the small pox epidemic, and the other epidemics that happened afterwards in rapid succession. I have a feeling if disease didn't hit with the force it did hit with, then Europe would have taken longer to settle the Americas, and probably would have had to resort more to conquering then settling the east coast. The native's have shown they obviously were capable of warfare with Europe, especially in the 16th century, when the British were really having a lot of trouble spreading beyond the Appalachian mountains due to them. But of course if Rhye actually made the Americas realistic, then a lot of people would complain.

Woah, that is possibly the most ignorant post I have ever read in my life on this forum. The 'evidence' isn't all circumstantial or transparent like the UFOs or Atlantic examples you so rudely stated.

[...]

Cahokia - A city in modern Illinois--yes, that is north of new mexico--that flourished in 1200AD, and had an estimated peak population of over 40,000 people. There's an incredible amount of evidence there that there once stood a fairly well established city in this spot that survived for over 500 years, from evidence of mass agriculture, and settlement debris, to a very large square area of land that was made flat to build the city on. Not to mention the mammoth burial mounds present around the site.



I really don't want to be that ignorant, so can you please link some university researches (NOT a book written by one man) or something institutional that proves that a 40,000 city existed in Illinois (only to apparently vanish), and list all these faboulous and incredible amount of evidences ?

Korea would be a good civ to play a one-city challenge in RFC (to avoid prolonging the load time). Spawn time can be 700BC. Reasonable goals:
1. Have more than 20000 (or more?) culture by 1500
2. No other cities until 1800 (but vassals OK)
3. Build Confucian, Buddhist, Taoist and Christian temples and monasteries by 1000AD (maybe start with 2 missionaries for the former 2 religions and once it contacts the civs that founded Christianity and Taoism get missionaries --of course you have to find those civs first half way across the world). These religions represent the mix that is seen today in Korea. And if China captures the Korean city it will help them towards their temple building goals (which gives it incentive to invade Korea).

The tough part would be to survive the Chinese, Japanese and Mongol invasions as just one city...

There're many more important civs in history than Korea. I.e. Poland.

I like the Korean idea. I would have like to see them earlier. I don't like the 3 UHV condition.

The big question is, are there free slots for new civs?

The big question is, are there free slots for new civs?

I was (is) problem in vanilla. With expansion packs it's unlimited.

Please people, the game already runs slowly enough as it is - more civs, more waiting time. I already hate the modern period enough that I refuse to play the US again.

The problem with the Native Americans that they were'nt united, I think they should be represented as a Native\Independent city.
What I really dont know, is why the Byzantines are'nt playable?
they should spawn in Constantinopole only, 395 AD.
UHVs are:
Control the teritorry of the Eastern Roman Empire in 1000 AD.
All cities should have Christianity in 1000 AD.
Control the teritorry of the whole Roman Empire in 1600 AD.

I ask again:

How could adding another civ slow down the game exponentially and not linear?

For those in the NA discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cahokia
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/northamerica/cahokia.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/march/12/cahokia.htm
http://pages.interlog.com/~gilgames/cahokia.htm
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/198
http://www.cahokiamounds.com/mystery_01.html
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/IL-Cahokia.html
http://www.jqjacobs.net/blog/cahokia.html Has good pictures of mounds

If you do not read any of the other pages read this one:
http://angam.ang.univie.ac.at/LiveMiss/Cahokia/frameset.htm

Also, check out National Geographic's May, 2007 edition. It includes a nice insert showing how destructive the plagues were to the Eastern Seaboard's natives. As well, the Plains Indians weren't nomadic until the plagues destroyed their societies farther east... (mentioned in the article)

How could adding another civ slow down the game exponentially and not linear?

They need to have diplomatic relations with every other civilization.

If you do not read any of the other pages read this one:
http://angam.ang.univie.ac.at/LiveMiss/Cahokia/frameset.htm

(let me say that about 98% of the links of this website is an HTTP 404 deadend).

Ok, so we know that there was a big settlement there, at least compared to the rest of north america. We know very little about the people that lived there (we don't even know their name and the name of the settlement) because they had not invented writing. We only know that they built big mounds and that they were sedentary. Why does the fact that they built mounds and cultivated corn impress so much so many people to think there should be a civ to represent them ? We may have an idea for a UB but what about the rest to flesh out a Civ ? And what could the UHV be if they didn't even invent Writing by the time Europe was discovering Gunpowder and there is no evidence of this "civ" living in more than one settling ???
I think people got a bit overexcited here, since you can read comments like this from that website: [Cahokia being one of the world's bigger settlement in its time !!] "having rivaled London in size and being “much larger than Paris at the time, one of Europe's major cities". Heh, well, one could answer with a lot of arguments, but let me say just one thing: european Middle Age cities were built very tight by design, I don't see how this undermines their importance or increases the "achievements" of Cahokians. Now if my 3 brothers and I would build a settlement where our 4 houses would stand at the corners of a square of 50 km sides, would we have built a huge metropolis, bigger than NYC ? Hardly, right ? Not to mention that the nature in Europe and America is completely different. Everything in America is bigger. Comments like the one I quoted only make those websites appear like a bunch of fanatics' visions, and I was by no means joking when I said that there are more evidences about Atlantis, and that we know more about it. Look around the net, you'll find the same kind of websites, just with MORE evidences and working links, especially since the recent discoveries in the Indian Ocean.

(let me say that about 98% of the links of this website is an HTTP 404 deadend).

Ok, so we know that there was a big settlement there

I was just providing links because you asked for them.

Personally, I do not think it should be a playable civ. I would be happy if it was just a Native city. It WAS there and it WAS the largest city in NA at the time, so I think it should be represented in Rhye's as a Native City.

Thanks Luko, that makes sense...

But it was abandoned by 1400 according to your links, and only became a center of significant size/population not much before, in RFC terms, this means that a city would show up and disappear before some other civ would actually have time to interact with it... which if you think about it is not only RFC terms, but real history.

Also, check out National Geographic's May, 2007 edition. It includes a nice insert showing how destructive the plagues were to the Eastern Seaboard's natives. As well, the Plains Indians weren't nomadic until the plagues destroyed their societies farther east... (mentioned in the article)

That was an interesting article.

I find it intriguing the idea in that article (or perhaps it was a Smithonian magazine article that also appeared this past spring) of how populated the mid-atlantic actually was. I had pictured a pristine wilderness with dense forests and ragtag groups of natives. In actuality the indians had cleared all the undergrowth and had implemented crop rotation. The rotation was misunderstood by the settlers who claimed the fallow fields as abandoned. I grew up on the Chesapeake Bay and the town names are a mixture of indian and English. Chincoteague, Machipongo, Assawoman, and Onancock give way to Tasley, Cape Charles, Salisbury, and Princess Anne. Of course the indian named towns are named after nearby rivers, islands or inlets, probably not after an indian settlement.

All of this to say, I don't think they should be included outside of a barbarian presence, even though there were upwards of 20,000 natives living just in the tidewater region of Virginia and the English were able to use already cleared land.

Please people, the game already runs slowly enough as it is - more civs, more waiting time. I already hate the modern period enough that I refuse to play the US again.

Sorry but if your computer is from 1999 you cant expect things to run smothly.

^^

But my computer is from 2005, and it is very slow during 19th century.

No more civs will be added from Rhye. Period

While making the Byzantines playable in the 600 scenario does sound like a good idea to me (after all, it has been proven a while ago that they could hypothetically survive), even that will probably be difficult to implement. As to the other suggestions, I fear none of them are practical. The Zulus were too late, minor and ultimately-insignificant to count as a proper civilisation; the Native Americans never did form an unified polity, though as pointed out previously they did have some very developed centers. Korea is just too small, and ultimately didn't do much in history; making it a colonial power (as was done with other tiny, but developed coastal nations) is ridiculous for many reasons, and it really won't be able to thrive when caught between Mongolia, China and Japan.

HOWEVER, it would be a good idea to create some wholly original civilisations to fill in some extensive unoccupied and wrongly-occupied regions (so as to prevent 20th century empty spots and effortlessly huge empires, respectively) and in particular deal with the "barbarian problem". From the top of the hat:
- Poland (will fill in between Germany and Russia, somewhat curbing the former's early expansion and leading to a more historical balance of power; really not sure about what power it could have, but UHVs should probably be aimed towards hegemony in Eastern Europe combined with military strength);
- Kongo (will fill in Central Africa, limiting the barbarians somewhat; probably religion-themed UHVs and power, and maybe something like the Aztec anti-European UHV);
- Zanzibar/Tanzania (will help fill in Africa, and generally be trade- and sea-themed);
- Sogdiana/Turkestan (will fill in Central Asia, curving the barbarians there somewhat; commercial/cultural UHVs will make more sense for Sogdiana, whereas Turkestan, while probably retaining some commercial elements, should probably also have military and/or religious/scientific UHVs);
- Indonesia (to prevent a ridiculously huge, powerful and wealthy Khmer Empire; commercial and religious UHVs, possibly including something like the Carthaginian monopoly UHV);
- Australia (okay, very dubious for many reasons, but I just can't stand the sight of that barren, mostly-empty continent).

Some additional civilisations in America WOULD be good, but I can't think of where we could put them. I'd have proposed Brazil, as it is frequently unoccupied in my games, but that obviously clashes with the Portuguese UHV.

@Das: I like the ideas above, but I think they would do just fine (and would better suit the mod) as Indies...

Not Poland again!!!
There is simply no place for Poland in Europe, or any other civ for that matter.
Adding an African civ is like adding the Zulus.

Australia is a to modern civ.

Decolonization civ like Brazil, Colombia,... might be nice, but maybe a bite to short to play. Maybe add them as unplayables like the independants.

I like the Turkmenistan idea. It's really a blanck spot on the map. A civ around Samarkand.

A playable Byzantium in de 600AD start, even in the 3000BC start might be nice too.

But the most important reason not to add civs is that is slows down the game even more and that's against Rhye's philosophy. So...maybe not adding civs would be the best.

I,ve always supported the Koreans. Theres no real reason not to include them and yes it would be fun as a sort of RFC 1-2 city challenge.

It would also give Japan a much needed adversary and would make their UHV much harder.


With native americans what about the cherokee or iriqios? They were in civ3 I werent they?

also why do the mayans spawn so late? they were around since at least 900 bc.

Rhye is not adding any civs. Period.

No more civs will be added from Rhye. Period

Rhye is not adding any civs. Period.

Quoted twice for effect since this thread keeps cropping up in various forms and has done since before BtS was launched.

I won't add any, but Korea was indeed a mistake of mine.
I couldn't think of any UP or UHV and they have virtually no expansion, but I didn't think about making their UHV a unique 1 city challenge, that would have been interesting.
Too late now anyway. I'm not screwing up strategy guides (on paper magazines too) that mention independent Korea

I did notice on the manual however it mentions possible additions of minor civs...

I did notice on the manual however it mentions possible additions of minor civs...

Read "minor" as unplayable independents.

I won't add any, but Korea was indeed a mistake of mine.
I couldn't think of any UP or UHV and they have virtually no expansion, but I didn't think about making their UHV a unique 1 city challenge, that would have been interesting.
Too late now anyway. I'm not screwing up strategy guides (on paper magazines too) that mention independent Korea

Maybe you were thinking about how you're going to get by with Ming Tai Zu's mug looking exactly like Wang Kon's. :mischief:

I did notice on the manual however it mentions possible additions of minor civs...

i'm sorry, that line is outdated.

Can't wait for RFC on CIV5

i think korea should be included, also the celts should become playable if there still alive after a certain point or after nationalism is discovered in their homelands

Quoted twice for effect since this thread keeps cropping up in various forms and has done since before BtS was launched.

Yeah, we realize that no more civs will be added. But why that should stop us whining about the need to add Luxembourg?

Lads having never got far in the mod due to various difficulties, (difficulty level, performance), can I ask does the 3000bc start stay with the amount of Civs at the start or do completely new ones spawn later in the game?

New civs spawn at about the time they historically rose.

New civs spawn at about the time they historically rose.


OK, cool. About how many in total appear througout?

If you start as, say Greece, at some stage the USA will appear?

Yes, USA will appear in 16XX(not their real independence year, they were kind of a vassal state before independence) if I'm correct.

If you start as, say Greece, at some stage the USA will appear?

Yes, they will.

Crosspost.

Ahh.... eeeexcellent..... I think if the new patch makes it better to play for me levelwise, I'll probably play only RFC for the next 6 months....

Welcome to our world ;)

Rhye said (and I agree):

it will grow big cities all over the place. Of course, it will be backwards, but the European didn't conquer North America, they SETTLED it..

Settled it yes, but over the bones of Native Americans and over the ruins of Native cities and settlments. Disease, enslavement, exhaustion and wars devastated the Native popluations, virtually wiping entire cultures out. It wasn't as if it was just barren land the Europeans encountered...the Americas were populated by Natives in the millions. How much exactly? That IS controversial and no one knows for sure, but that it is in the millions, if not tens of millions I don't think any serious historian doubts.

Oh yes and to answer the topic's question:

Add more civs? NO. :D

The North American settlers did pretty much find a barren wasteland because of European diseases introduced by the Spanish. I'm not saying that Europeans didn't commit terrible atrocities in North America but in civ terms it was settlement not invasion; there were no cities or complex states for the Europeans to conquer. They founded their own.

It might be too slow to do so, and I don't think they'd add much.

From my experience, the world map is already full enough!

The presence of Korea would more or less force Japan to crush it early on in order to make her UHV.

Yes, USA will appear in 16XX(not their real independence year, they were kind of a vassal state before independence) if I'm correct.

Your right about being a Vassal (of england technically, although really the NA cities were simply part of the Empire rather than a Vassal but thats by the by) but your wrong about the year. USA spawns in 1730AD

Yeah, we realize that no more civs will be added. But why that should stop us whining about the need to add Luxembourg?

Arf! If Rhye done that Poland would have to be added and we cant have that can we?

Settled it yes, but over the bones of Native Americans and over the ruins of Native cities and settlments. Disease, enslavement, exhaustion and wars devastated the Native popluations, virtually wiping entire cultures out. It wasn't as if it was just barren land the Europeans encountered...the Americas were populated by Natives in the millions. How much exactly? That IS controversial and no one knows for sure, but that it is in the millions, if not tens of millions I don't think any serious historian doubts.

Yes, but Plague as we know it in RFC won't wipe out a civilization, so there would be a continent covered by culture... Besides, what point or fun would there be to have a civ that exists but that isn't playable due to being wiped out "automatically"?

We're not really talking history in here, mind you, we're talking of RFC which still is a game, not a simulation

Your right about being a Vassal (of england technically, although really the NA cities were simply part of the Empire rather than a Vassal but thats by the by) but your wrong about the year. USA spawns in 1730AD.

Oo, I've forgot that the year has changed. Thanks for correcting me.

Hi!
For those trying to get some information about pre-columbian chiefdoms, a small start on amazonian's advanced settlements:

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

There should be fewer civs in Rhye's, in my opinion. The Mayans could certainly be represented by a single NPC city, as in the 600 AD start. The Carthaginians could also be shrunk like that, if you want to be really strict. In addition, I've noticed that the Mongols and Vikings stay around longer than they did historically as united empires, and I think they should either be simulated as barbarian waves or suffer a lot of minuses in stability, so they collapse early.

Having said that, perhaps I am just historically ill-informed; but I don't see much benefit from the presence of these four civs as opposed to the available alternatives, and the performance cost of having them in.

There should be fewer civs in Rhye's, in my opinion. The Mayans could certainly be represented by a single NPC city, as in the 600 AD start. The Carthaginians could also be shrunk like that, if you want to be really strict. In addition, I've noticed that the Mongols and Vikings stay around longer than they did historically as united empires, and I think they should either be simulated as barbarian waves or suffer a lot of minuses in stability, so they collapse early.

Having said that, perhaps I am just historically ill-informed; but I don't see much benefit from the presence of these four civs as opposed to the available alternatives, and the performance cost of having them in.

The Mayan City States lasted - and continued to offer resistance against the Spanish - a lot longer than either the Aztec or Inca did.

Carthaginians was a proper empire back in those ancient times - and the main enemy of Rome until they were finally defeated.

Mongols was responsible for the biggest empire (area wise anyway) that the world have ever seen - and they are still around.

Vikings never existed as a united empire - or even nation. But since Rhye insist on using this historical incorrect label given by Firaxis for the Scandinavians then yes, the Scandinavian nations are still very much around and going strong.

Yeah, that's all (or mostly*) true.

But none of it justifies making the Mayans or Vikings, say, united civilisations rather than independent cities. To say that the Mongols controlled the largest empire in world history is not the same as saying it requires a single united civilisation to represent it - or, indeed, saying that the Black Sea khanates and Mongol China were united by anything other than the ethnic descent of the ruling class.

Independents and instability are in the game for a reason. It does seem like the patch increases their potency by quite a bit - I saw an independent Britain today while playing as the Japanese! It would be of great help to game performance if these effects overwhelmed certain civs more, so I never again see a huge 20th century Mongol Empire.

* Depending on your definition, the British Empire may have been larger than the Mongolian possessions. The determinant is whether you count dominions like Canada, Australia, etc.

@Panopticon:
I am only going to be able to agree with you on 1 point. I wouldn't mind seeing Mongolia taking a forced severe Stability hit (at least if being AI) somewhere after the year 1400 - or perhaps the hit could occur at any time once they have grown beyond a certain size.

A Stability hit like this could in fact be given to all civs once they reached the point when they started to loose importance historically. Of course it would be hard to justify giving such a hit to certain civs that are still around today.

While I recognise the fact that performance in late game is wretched, some civs already in could be made playable. The Celts could start between Greece and Germany, as they did inhabit that region, and no one spawns there. In addition, they could harass Grecce and Rome as they did historically. Their UP- no stability minus for cities in homeland.

Why not Poland then?

While I recognise the fact that performance in late game is wretched, some civs already in could be made playable. The Celts could start between Greece and Germany, as they did inhabit that region, and no one spawns there. In addition, they could harass Grecce and Rome as they did historically. Their UP- no stability minus for cities in homeland.
The Celts are already in and harassing the Romans(as an Independant type civ), but a proper playable Celtic civ in the ancient times would be nice.

The Celts
Spawn date: 1000BC
UP: Power of Migration (Settlers are hidden, +1 move, ignore terrain costs, can move through rival territory)
UHV:
1) found 2 cities in each Spain and France + 1 city in each Thrace, Wales, Scottland and Ireland by 400AD
2) sack Rome before 400AD (just need to capture it once, don't have to hold it)
3) move capitol to Britain and build Stonehenge in capitol by 400ADHowever, I don't see the Celts surviving the stability hits (or wars) from all the other other europeans, as they start eating their cities on spawn.


Continuing my thoughts (from my previuos post in this thread) about historical long gone civilizations being given a stability hit to make them go away at certain dates. Then this hit could occur whenever a civ fails to fulfill an UHV requirement/date. Obviously this hit would be massive if all UHV requirement was to be met on the same date (and all was failed).

I don't recall ever seeing the AI succeed even a single UHV requirement with Carthage or Mongolia so this way would take care of them naturally (not taking any freak recoveries from the stability hit into account). On the other hand then civs like China and Inda always meets at least 1 of theirs.

Also, this idea could be extended to work the other way around as well. Whenever a civ completed an UHV requirement then the civ would experience a boost to stability.

This would be a very, very good idea. I am tempted to tinker with stability.py and see if I can write in a penalty like that for Mongolia and Vikings - I'm playing as the Russians and the continuing presence of Kublai Khan is beginning to be a problem in colonising Siberia.

A Celt civ would make thinks very difficult for Rome, not mention that there wasn't really any such thing as a single unified Celtic civilisation.

I don't think forced stability hits is a good idea, RFC and civ in general is as much about alternate history as it is history. Carthage did not just collapse, it was conquered. If Rome hadn't conquered it, and then the Arabs hadn't either then yes a Phoenician civilisation might still exist in North Africa. So if those conditions happen in RFC, why shouldn't the result be the same?

Same with Mongolia, the main reasons for the Empire's collapse into the khanates are already represented in RFC -- stability loss due to (over)expansion and plague. Admittedly there is a (in my opinion quite a big one, but I am a bit of a Genghis Khan "fan") problem with Mongolia not expanding nearly aggressively enough which lets it survive too long but this really isn't the solution.

indeed, saying that the Black Sea khanates and Mongol China were united by anything other than the ethnic descent of the ruling class.
Well up until 1294 they were all under the jurisdiction of a single khagan...

* Depending on your definition, the British Empire may have been larger than the Mongolian possessions. The determinant is whether you count dominions like Canada, Australia, etc.
And why wouldn't you?

A Celt civ would make thinks very difficult for Rome, not mention that there wasn't really any such thing as a single unified Celtic civilisation.
Not sure I can agree with that. Sure they were never a unified nation as such, but they shared a common culture. The same is true for some of the other civilizations already playable in RFC.

I don't think forced stability hits is a good idea, RFC and civ in general is as much about alternate history as it is history. Carthage did not just collapse, it was conquered.
...
Same with Mongolia, the main reasons for the Empire's collapse into the khanates are already represented in RFC -- stability loss due to (over)expansion and plague.
Who is to say they wouldn't also have collapsed, if their leaders had failed to meet with the peoples expectations to accomplish certain goals?

Hey, I don't know if this was mentioned already 'cause I didn't want to read the whole thread. But:

Can't we add civs but limit the total number of civs? I mean, there could be 30 civs, but no game has more than 18. You could pick the civs at game start, or have them randomly assigned.

Ryry

Instead of forced stability hits for the Mongols, how about larger stability penalties for failing to expand fast enough, so we would either see Mongolia or China but rarely both?

Also any chance of Mongolia spawning at war with China? I know its a little predetermined but no more so than Romes war with the Celts.

There appears to be a consensus that Mongolia is too persistent.

The difficulty, from a historical perspective, is exactly what has been raised earlier by another writer: The heyday of the Mongol Empire was over by 1300, but the game can't simulate such a rapid rise and fall by a single civ. (Which is why waves of barbarians may well simulate it better.) Mongolia's persistence creates an unbalancing superpower in Asia and hinders the realistic colonisation of Siberia by Russia. We may also question whether it is really realistic for such a decentralised state (by necessity - we are talking about a gigantic 13th century steppe empire here) to survive united, just because it's in its historical area of expansion. It also adds to the generally slow performance of the game.

It would be nice to have a situation where Mongolia either loses its western territories, or goes into civil war, around 1500 at latest. Ideally, we would see it in control of the Gobi desert, the Baikal region and China. How to do this is the dilemma.

My solution would be to penalise Mongolia heavily for all expansion west of the Gobi desert, while still creating incentives for the AI to do this.

uhm, I never saw Mongolia preventing expansion in Siberia. Expansion in Siberia is prevented by Siberia itself: it is a crappy place not worth the maintenance costs. About Mongolia's persistance, it's the same with many other civs, Rome is the typical example that more often than not (certainly more often than Mongolia) is among the first 3 superpowers in the modern age. Why picking on poor Mongolians ? Just because they have different eyes due to desert storms ? Bah... In the end I think we should play a game, not play a video documentary on human history.

The Mongols stopped my eastward expansion when I played as Russia, gonna have to fight them now.

uhm, I never saw Mongolia preventing expansion in Siberia. Expansion in Siberia is prevented by Siberia itself: it is a crappy place not worth the maintenance costs. About Mongolia's persistance, it's the same with many other civs, Rome is the typical example that more often than not (certainly more often than Mongolia) is among the first 3 superpowers in the modern age. Why picking on poor Mongolians ? Just because they have different eyes due to desert storms ? Bah... In the end I think we should play a game, not play a video documentary on human history.

Please don't call me racist. Mongolia is a civ I have chosen to address because like Rome, it is unrealistically persistent, but unlike Rome, there is quite a simple solution - penalise its expansion westwards, to recognise that although it did and should expand that way, it shouldn't get to keep those possessions forever. That is how history happened - it is unreasonable to say that such an empire could have lasted forever, for a number of practical reasons. It's not about historical determinism, but historical realism. The Mongol Empire was not designed to last forever.

Instead of expanding westward, maybe the Mongolians should try to realize what Kublai Khan failed to do--conquer Japan. That will certainly prevent a large empire westward. I basically used the Turkish cities for getting to my razing goal.
How about breaking up an AI Mongolian Empire into khanates (all vassals to the main Chinese/Yuan dynasty) at a certain time (e.g. 1550)? This will simplify politics to a certain degree since direction will come from the master. Of course if they become unstable these vassals should respawn as independent countries (Persia, India).

Continuing my thoughts (from my previuos post in this thread) about historical long gone civilizations being given a stability hit to make them go away at certain dates. Then this hit could occur whenever a civ fails to fulfill an UHV requirement/date. Obviously this hit would be massive if all UHV requirement was to be met on the same date (and all was failed).

I don't recall ever seeing the AI succeed even a single UHV requirement with Carthage or Mongolia so this way would take care of them naturally (not taking any freak recoveries from the stability hit into account). On the other hand then civs like China and Inda always meets at least 1 of theirs.

Also, this idea could be extended to work the other way around as well. Whenever a civ completed an UHV requirement then the civ would experience a boost to stability.

I dont think this is a very good idea for the simple reason that not everyone (including me) plays for UHVs. I rarely go for UHVs because they're always more or less the same. I rather go for a fun game.
So, giving stability penalties for not met UHV-conditions is limiting my ability to play the way I want.
I'd rather not see this in RFC - however historical it might be.

How about breaking up an AI Mongolian Empire into khanates (all vassals to the main Chinese/Yuan dynasty) at a certain time (e.g. 1550)? This will simplify politics to a certain degree since direction will come from the master. Of course if they become unstable these vassals should respawn as independent countries (Persia, India).
I like that idea, it reflects history and would stop Mongolia becoming a modern power. But it would only really work if Mongolia expanded as rapidly as it should. Which it doesn't. I think if we saw Mongolia regularly conquering China and Persia/Babylonia much of the problems of it persisting would be solved anyway.

I dont think this is a very good idea for the simple reason that not everyone (including me) plays for UHVs.
Maybe I didn't make this point of my "stability hit(s) based on failed UHVs" idea clear, but I only meant these stability hits to apply to civs controlled by the AI.

Although I wouldn't mind if the human player was required to meet at least 1 of the 3 UHV requirements - or suffer a stability hit.

uhm, I never saw Mongolia preventing expansion in Siberia. Expansion in Siberia is prevented by Siberia itself: it is a crappy place not worth the maintenance costs. About Mongolia's persistance, it's the same with many other civs, Rome is the typical example that more often than not (certainly more often than Mongolia) is among the first 3 superpowers in the modern age. Why picking on poor Mongolians ? Just because they have different eyes due to desert storms ? Bah... In the end I think we should play a game, not play a video documentary on human history.

I agree. Rome is usually around for quite awhile; Babylon has stayed to almost 1500 in a couple of my games.
Mongolia does one of three things in my games: half the time, it sits around, with a lot of cities, but nothing else, then China respawns, and the Mongols are weaker. Sometimes they are stronger, and control most of northern China (never all). Sometimes China actually pushes back and takes the Mongols out themselves. I've never seen a superpower Mongolia yet.

Although I wouldn't mind if the human player was required to meet at least 1 of the 3 UHV requirements - or suffer a stability hit.

When would you suffer a stability hit for not razing seven cities? There's no timeline for that.

When would you suffer a stability hit for not razing seven cities? There's no timeline for that.
Indeed not, and several other UHV requirements for other civilizations doesn't have a date either. Solution would be to have a seperate - and historically appropriate - date for checking against UHV goals (the last date for any of the UHV goals might fit the job). So civs with at least 1 UHV goal met at that date would suffer no hit, while civs having met no goals at all would have to endure an appropriately sized hit to stability.

I think hits for the player not going after a certain victory is a bad idea.

Also, check out National Geographic's May, 2007 edition. It includes a nice insert showing how destructive the plagues were to the Eastern Seaboard's natives. As well, the Plains Indians weren't nomadic until the plagues destroyed their societies farther east... (mentioned in the article)
Haven't seen that article. Looks interesting.
To anybody who thinks Native Americans didn't live in settled communities,
they should read accounts of DeSoto's expedition through the American
South in the 1530's. He visited towns of over 20,000 people each among
the Creeks and Chickasaws of Georgia and Alabama.
The Plains Indians became nomadic for two main reasons.
They began getting horses from the Spanish after 1750.
And white settlement moving west began to threaten their settlements and their
hunting grounds east of the Mississippi.
And yes, plague and white land-grabbing became a factor too.
For example, the Sioux lived entirely in Minnesota and Ilinois until 1800.:)

Living in a settlement does not mean living in a city. Only americans (including the scientist community) are so big about this, I suspect that they MUST find something that proves that culture and civilization was thriving in America prior to European "invasion". Is it some kind of complex or what ? In case you missed it, plague has ravaged in Europe for centuries, and it never wiped out CITIES. The truth is that there are no proofs, one settlement (Cahokia) doesn't prove that native americans lived in cities, especially since this settlement (being only a settlement, should I underline it once more) was abandoned before the arrival of european, so I wonder why blaming the absence of cities or sedentary life in general on Europe is so en vogue among american posters.

Vikings never existed as a united empire - or even nation. But since Rhye insist on using this historical incorrect label given by Firaxis for the Scandinavians then yes, the Scandinavian nations are still very much around and going strong.

Firaxis didn't implement Scandinavia, they implemented The Vikings. The music, the UU, the UB and even cities are vikings, not Swedish or Danish or else. Vikings are responsible for pretty blonde sicilian women. Isn't this amusing enough to the average american who thinks sicilians are moors because of idiotic TV shows ?

That is why their capital is called Nidaros, not Trondheim. (It is also why I think it should collapse more!)

Firaxis didn't implement Scandinavia, they implemented The Vikings. The music, the UU, the UB and even cities are vikings, not Swedish or Danish or else.
Both you and Firaxis got all this terribly wrong.
ALL 'Vikings' were from the Scandinavian countries Denmark, Norway and Sweden, but far from all Scandinavians could be said to be Vikings in any meaning of the word (Viking can have several meanings sea raider, from the sea or he who lives in the bay). Most current day Scandinavians are direct descendants from the same people that went on Viking raids, but there has never been a Viking nation, civilization or people under that name.

That is why their capital is called Nidaros, not Trondheim.
Heh, Nidaros IS Trondheim.

Well noticed. That was the point. The Viking civilisation represents the pre-1000AD Scandinavian raiders and not the subsequent Christian kingdoms.

Well noticed. That was the point. The Viking civilisation represents the pre-1000AD Scandinavian raiders and not the subsequent Christian kingdoms.
Again I repeat - there never existed such a thing as a Viking civilization - but of course, in RFC they represent Scandinavians through all ages.

I can just barely live with Scandinavians being named "Vikings" in the Middle Ages, but after that they really need to change name. Perhaps "Denmark/Norway" in the Renaissance era, "Sweden" in the Industrial era and "Scandinavia" in the Modern era would be appropriate.

What? There is a Viking civilisation, it is in the game Civ IV, and that is what I was talking about, as is obvious from my post. The nature of it in both the main game and in its RFC behaviour is that of the Vikings and not the subsequent Scandinavians. Are we going to have a pointless etymological argument about how you define a civilisation, or are we going to get back on topic?

If the Viking civ represents the Viking-age Scandinavians only, they shouldn't get a civ at all. Centralised monarchies and Christianity appear near the end of the period and the period only lasted c. 300 years.

However I believe the 'Vikings' represent all the Scandinavians and that the name was chosen for its commercial appeal.

What? There is a Viking civilisation, it is in the game Civ IV, and that is what I was talking about, as is obvious from my post. The nature of it in both the main game and in its RFC behaviour is that of the Vikings and not the subsequent Scandinavians. Are we going to have a pointless etymological argument about how you define a civilisation, or are we going to get back on topic?
Yeah, because if some historical illiteral at Firaxis says it is so then surely it must be a fact. :lol:

Nidaros is actually automatically renamed to Trondheim at some point during the progress of the mod - so Rhye clearly took some of the realities into consideration already, but it wouldn't hurt if this was taken just one step further. ;)

Anyway, it was you - not me - who brought the Vikings to the table.
Vikings stay around longer than they did historically as united empires, and I think they should either be simulated as barbarian waves or suffer a lot of minuses in stability, so they collapse early.
This is of course incorrect on many levels, so I had to correct your misconception about this issue.

Also, as I read the purpose of this thread then it was to debate whether more civs(and which ones if so) should/could be added it RFC. You argued some should be taken out and now I more than sufficiently argued why they should not.

---

I for one wouldn't mind seeing the inclusion of more industrial/modern era civlizations such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, Brazil etc.
This could be further spiced by older civilizations respawning/renamed with/to more modern names such as Mexcio, Peru, Libya, Iran, Vietnam etc.

Perhaps all this could be the trigger to make a 3rd starting point in time as well - starting at the birth of America? :)

Look, this is a forum, not a debating society, so there's really no point to continuing this. We are at cross purposes.

Living in a settlement does not mean living in a city. Only americans (including the scientist community) are so big about this, I suspect that they MUST find something that proves that culture and civilization was thriving in America prior to European "invasion".

Not necessarily cities but the Creeks were getting fairly advanced for their means. There is a settlement in Macon, Georgia at the Ocmulgee river with man made dry lakes, HUGE mounds, and evidence they had been there for ages .... I don't see how that can be arguably much different from the Mayas, except the infrastructure and culture certainly hadn't become established.

Look, this is a forum, not a debating society...
Heh, a Forum is a place where people meet, trade and debate stuff. So yes ... CFC is (among other) a debating society for Civ related topics.

Again I repeat - there never existed such a thing as a Viking civilization - but of course, in RFC they represent Scandinavians through all ages.


They do not. As I already said their name is not any of the scandinavian countries, their UU is viking, UB viking, city names, music, flavor, everything is VIKING, even in RFC if you consider also UP and UHV. Since there can be Babylonia and Rome and Carthage from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age, and NOT Morocco, Italy or Iraq, there can be Vikings and NOT Scandinavians or Denmark, Sweden, Norway or even Finland.

@onedreamer:
So what you are actually saying is that you think it is fine to have a civilization that never existed in history - and at the same time leaving out civilizations that did/do exist - in a game that sets out to approximate history?

Are you reading different posts to everybody else?

There is no point engaging with this any further, I recommend that nobody do so. It is a futile effort. In the words of a certain opera, "Some men you cannot satisfy". (Same goes for women of course!)

Are you reading different posts to everybody else?
How else can you read it? He is saying that the current bogus 'Viking civilization' doesn't/shouldn't represent Scandinavians at all - and the Vikings was NEVER a civilization in any definition of the word.

If all the Vikings are meant to represent are the sea raiders that came from scandinavia then frankly they would be better represented by Barbarians. However, if they are meant represent later eras of scandinavian history as well then some tweaking to the civilization would be in order - changing the name of the civilization in later eras to start with.

You know,

I like that.

I mean I like the idea to replace Viking Civilization with Barbarians that are spawning.

See, most of the time the Vikings are passive anyway. Just settling their little Scandinavia but apart from this ... not even Iceland gets settled and they do not really trouble anybody.

Hey, I don't know if this was mentioned already 'cause I didn't want to read the whole thread. But:

Can't we add civs but limit the total number of civs? I mean, there could be 30 civs, but no game has more than 18. You could pick the civs at game start, or have them randomly assigned.

Ryry

I really like that idea. It also offers the advantage of a less predictable game if the random option is chosen.

What is done currently is that there is a number of average civs. That means that there are 30 civs, but only a capped number is alive at a single point of time. The others are collapsed.
In this case you already have kinda of the proposed feature but without any unnecessary randomness.

Randomness would actually spoil the gameplay of RFC. See, all civs are interlinked with each other. Like when Spain is supposed to conquer the Incas it would be kinda stupid if there are no Inca.

Also several civs have the function to balance each other. This is especially true for Europe. So France and Russia are balancing Germany. If there is no France then Germany would be a Super Germany, which would spoil gameplay rapidly. What I mean to say is that all civs are balanced in a very subtle way but nevertheless complex way.
A few examples :
Russia has no enemy to the east, therefore Siberia is a REALLY crappy place. (this is done by marches, tundra, less ressources etc.) India has a whole subcontinent alone, but is not suppose to rise before very late in the game, therefore there are lots of jungles in India etc etc. Not the mention the endless deserts and mountains in the 'natural' Mongolian territory.

European territory on the other hand is boosted excessively, because it has to host historically high rising Civs on minimal territory.
Therefore if suddenly a few European Civs are missing then there is a real problem. In this case there would emerge an ever dominating European Super Civ.

Also several civs have the function to balance each other. This is especially true for Europe. So France and Russia are balancing Germany. If there is no France then Germany would be a Super Germany
Sound reasoning, but it does seem to contradict with your previous post favouring the Vikings being merely barbarians. Your reasoning equally applies to the Vikings in regard to balancing Germany, England, Russia and possibly Netherlands as well.

In case it wasn't clear then I never advocated making Vikings barbarians, but rather to change them into something more historical appropriate than Vikings past the medieval era.

---

The more I think about it the more I feel that the mod would stand to gain a lot from adding the Celts as playable civ during the classical era(see my previous post for suggested set up (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6215760&postcount=65)).

That they might make things harder for Rome is a non-issue imho, if anything then the opposite would probably be true. The Romans should be stronger than the Celts, and there would be more of the cities that the Romans need for their UHV already founded by the Celts for the Romans to capture.

not quite,

see Barbarians are also a balancing factor.

A Scandinavia full of Barbarian Vikings and Barbarian Cities will stop any early expansion into that area as well.

The issue would only occur if there would be NO placeholder in Scandinavia at all.
Neither a Civ, nor Barbarian territory.

(this was the suggestion, when people suggested to have only 18 random civs).

Therefore I still like the idea to make Vikings Barbarians.

Celts should be there only if they would collapse quite certain and quite early, if this could be worked Celts could be fun.

well all of the Celtic land would be given to the Medieval European Civs when they spawn anyway meaning the only place in Europe they could survive would be Ireland or if they conquered Rome.

(speaking of which wasn't it around the time of the Romans spawn in our game that the city was sacked by a Gaul who demanded his weight in gold and famously said "woe to the vanquished"?)

(speaking of which wasn't it around the time of the Romans spawn in our game that the city was sacked by a Gaul who demanded his weight in gold and famously said "woe to the vanquished"?)
Rome was sacked by the Gaul/Celt in 390BC (approx 15 turns after Rome spawns).

I think that there should be no Mali. What is the point, they never were important. Also, why can't Byzantines be playable.