This thread is for discussing Civs in Rhye's of Europe. For the moment, we're still hammering out a Civ list. I will try to update this page 1/page of discussion to keep it current. Once this list is semi-finalized discussion about UUs, UBs, and UHVs can commence.

Current Civ List:
Western Europe (4)
Kingdom of Neustria (500 AD) -> West Francia (840 AD) -> France (990 AD)
England (500 AD) -> Great Britain (1700 AD or by cities held?)
Netherlands (1050 AD)
Burgundy (500 AD)

Iberian Peninsula (3)
Kingdom of Asturias (720 AD) -> Leon (920 AD) -> Crown of Castile (1230 AD)
-> Empire of Spain (1520 AD)
Portugal (1100 AD)
Al-Andalus (700 AD)

North & Central Europe (5)
Norse: Danes (500 AD) -> Calmar (?) -> Sweden (?)
Kingdom of Austrasia (500 AD) -> East Francia (840 AD) -> Kingdom of Germany
(920 AD) -> Germanic States (1260 AD)
Lechia (970 AD) -> Poland (???) -> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1570 AD)
Austria/House of Habsburg (1160 AD or 1280 AD)
Old Swiss Confederacy (1290 AD) -> Switzerland (1650 AD?)

Eastern Europe (6)
Eastern Roman Empire (500 AD)
Kievan Rus (860 AD) -> Principality of Chernigov (1080 AD) -> Zaporozhian
Host? (1650 AD) -> Russian Empire (By Cities Held)
Vladimir-Suzdal (1090 AD) -> Grand Duchy of Moscow (1320 AD) -> Tsardom of
Russia (1547 AD) -> Russian Empire (By cities held)
Magyars (900 AD) -> Kingdom of Hungary (1000 AD)
Ottoman Empire (1300 AD)
Umayyad Caliphate (660 AD) -> Abbasid Caliphate (750 AD) -> Fatimid
Caliphate (970 AD) -> Ayyubid Dynasty (1170 AD) -> Mamluk Sultanate (
1250 AD)

Italy (3)
Papal States (500 AD)
Republic of Venetia (800 AD)
Republic of Genoa (1000 AD)

Additional Candidates:
Kingdom of Sicily (1000 AD)

Total: 21 + (1) independents, room for 1 more

Cities Belonging to Independents: not complete
*Novgorod
*Dublin
*Belfast
*Edinburough
*Gdansk
*Firenze/Florence (Italy)
*Milan (Italy)
*Burdigala -> Bordeaux (Occitania)
*Tolosa (Occitania)
*Massilia/Marseilles
*Narbo -> Narbonne or Barcino -> Barcelona
*Smolensk (Russia)
*Halicz/Halych (Galicia)
*Konigsberg or Memel? Reval?

Input most definitely appreciated.

Other serious proposals on table:
* Normans (replace Kingdom of Sicily, start with armies in Normandy and S. Italy)?
* Something where Prussia is? (Teutonic Order -> Prussia?)
* Split Norse into Sweden and Denmark?

Note: HRE is not a civ (and we have civs for Germany and Austria) but a title which can be earned in game, possibly awarded by the AP.

There are numerous notes in the RoE Development Thread on page 4 regarding countries included in the list.

Thoughts or comments appreciated. Also mention if you *like* something or the list as a whole. Keep in mind that our estimate on the number of civs we can have is ~23, including Independent. (If you have suggestions for civ name transitions, please make them. I don't pretend to know your country's history better than you do).

Something else to keep in mind is dynamic names and name transition dates are less important right now than the content of the list as a whole. Ie, if you want to read Austrasia -> East Francia -> German Kingdom... as "Germany", that's fine for now. (It just seems pointless to lose all that data and list it without it).

Reserved for Future Use

Reserved for future use

some things:
1) is this list "official" ?
2) "the HRE is only a title" is your own opinion, I have been providing you historical maps (and not only) proving otherwise but you refuse to accept it. You only seem to consider HRE in the 17th century or around this date but the Empire has a much longer history.
3) the start date is also not finalized but until now a post-Charlemagne start seemed the most plausible (and IMO better suited), yet for you it seems to be officially 500 AD, which is a quite messy start IMO with still barbarian kingdoms raising and falling everywhere... for example where are the Longobards ?
4) what do arrows represent ? Are these civs changing names and if yes on what basis ?

some things:
1) is this list "official" ?
2) "the HRE is only a title" is your own opinion, I have been providing you historical maps (and not only) proving otherwise but you refuse to accept it. You only seem to consider HRE in the 17th century or around this date but the Empire has a much longer history.
3) the start date is also not finalized but until now a post-Charlemagne start seemed the most plausible (and IMO better suited), yet for you it seems to be officially 500 AD, which is a quite messy start IMO with still barbarian kingdoms raising and falling everywhere... for example where are the Longobards ?
4) what do arrows represent ? Are these civs changing names and if yes on what basis ?

1) How can any list be official? No one has seen Vince-G in that thread in ages, who was perhaps the only arbiter of official. This list is the most recent, has been modified in response to feedback from other interested participants, and is the result of the fusion of my initial list with the only other complete civ list provided. As such, its the closest thing to a consensus list we have.

2) Actually, I'm considering the early history of the "HRE" as a reason to exclude it from being a civ. But more relevantly, it really was a title awarded by the Pope, and the holder always had another temporal title, which means its not a title associated with *land* or a *people*.

Why do you feel the need to have an HRE civ when we have a "German" civ and an Austrian civ? What advantages would there be? Wouldn't it be far more interesting to have a historical simulation where West Francia managed to hold the title of HRE instead of getting passed to the Ottonians of the German Kingdom? Also consider that in its early years the "Holy Roman Empire" was West Francia, or various dukedoms in N. Italy. And in later years it was actually in Spain! An English King was considered for HRE-elect by the German electors at one point, and Louis XIV almost let Alsaace maintain its "German" status so he could be a candidate for the HRE-elect title. Finally, there were Kings of Germany who weren't HREmperor concurrent with HREs who weren't King of Germany. Trying to make a civ out of that is like trying to grab air.

Finally, there was specifically a discussion on the nomenclature of the 'German' civ, and expressed consensus at the time was against HRE.

3) Based on what? Since about the 3rd page of the original thread just about everyone seems to have been onboard with a 500AD start. All that "mess" can be Independent cities or Barbarians, and there are something like 7 starting civs, with more than half the civs starting before 870. Since RFC starts with *4*, that seems to be perfectly reasonable. It also makes far more sense to start at or before the rising of most of the civs (Eastern Roman Empire being obviously impossible to do so with), not after they've already become established.

If nothing else, giving earlier start dates just means they'll start at the beginning of the mod if we choose a later start date. No harm done. Choosing an earlier start date is problematic if we don't have dates for civ starts. (I consider a pre-500 start unrealistic).

4) Arrows represent dynamic names based (at least loosely, and sometimes rather precisely) upon historical name changes (rounded to the nearest 10 generally).

Squirreloid,

When I proposed the inclusion of Kiev, I did it with three objectives in mind: providing a legitimate southern counter to Russian expansion and influence; historically representing a principality/city/area which remained historically important, despite frequently changing hands, for most of the scope of the mod; and enabling us to work the Mongol influence on Europe (in particular, Russia, Poland, and the Turks) into gameplay without having them as a horde of rampaging barbarian units or as an out-of-place civ transported to a remote corner of the map.

I think that all three of these objectives are important, possibly in the opposite order that I listed them - and the dynamic civs function allows us to implement a shift from a powerful Rus trading center to the westernmost khanate of the Pax Mongolica. Having UHVs that reflect this shift would make for interesting gameplay - the first goal would perhaps involve securing fur and grain resources; the second might involve controlling certain historical areas or razing cities in Russia and Lithuania; the third might be to create a Russian empire centered on Kiev rather than Moscow - which might very well have happened if not for the arrival of the Mongols, as Kiev was stronger and larger than Novgorod or Moscow at the time.


In other thoughts, I'd rather have the Teutonic order as a corporation replacement, as we discussed earlier, than as a civ. I'm in favor of having Gdansk/Danzig as an independent with high desirability for both Poland and proto-Germany, but I'm against including Prussia - there's enough going on there that I don't think we should use a precious civ slot on another Germanic principality.

More later.

Squirreloid,

When I proposed the inclusion of Kiev, I did it with three objectives in mind: providing a legitimate southern counter to Russian expansion and influence; historically representing a principality/city/area which remained historically important, despite frequently changing hands, for most of the scope of the mod; and enabling us to work the Mongol influence on Europe (in particular, Russia, Poland, and the Turks) into gameplay without having them as a horde of rampaging barbarian units or as an out-of-place civ transported to a remote corner of the map.

I think that all three of these objectives are important, possibly in the opposite order that I listed them - and the dynamic civs function allows us to implement a shift from a powerful Rus trading center to the westernmost khanate of the Pax Mongolica. Having UHVs that reflect this shift would make for interesting gameplay - the first goal would perhaps involve securing fur and grain resources; the second might involve controlling certain historical areas or razing cities in Russia and Lithuania; the third might be to create a Russian empire centered on Kiev rather than Moscow - which might very well have happened if not for the arrival of the Mongols, as Kiev was stronger and larger than Novgorod or Moscow at the time.

I agree completely. And that sounds like an interesting basis for an UHV certainly. I suppose exactly what we do with Kiev will depend on what story we want to tell with them.

In a way, Kiev has the same problem as England. (Hugely important historical conquest by an outside group who became the rulers). Its really hard to represent this in CivIV, even RFC. And Kiev arguably has it worse insofar as the Mongols are arguably more different from the Kievan Rus than the Normans were from the Anglo-Saxons. And of course, being at the far eastern edge of the map, the Mongol conquest is really more tied into events outside of Europe than into Europe itself.


In other thoughts, I'd rather have the Teutonic order as a corporation replacement, as we discussed earlier, than as a civ. I'm in favor of having Gdansk/Danzig as an independent with high desirability for both Poland and proto-Germany, but I'm against including Prussia - there's enough going on there that I don't think we should use a precious civ slot on another Germanic principality.

More later.

I was thinking both (corp = knightly order and civ) might be possible, though that would require some thinking about. As it stands, I'd rather add civs elsewhere too, but if people really want more civs in the area of Germany, its the logical candidate.

About Italy: I think it's better to avoid Venice (make it independent but strong) and put Kingdom of Sardinia. It was the heart of the unification of Italy, after all. Obviously, if we can have both it would be perfect.
Genova may be a good choice too

In a way, Kiev has the same problem as England. (Hugely important historical conquest by an outside group who became the rulers). Its really hard to represent this in CivIV, even RFC. And Kiev arguably has it worse insofar as the Mongols are arguably more different from the Kievan Rus than the Normans were from the Anglo-Saxons. And of course, being at the far eastern edge of the map, the Mongol conquest is really more tied into events outside of Europe than into Europe itself.

Good comparison - the Mongols definitely weren't absorbed into Russia in quite the same way that the Normans were into England. However, there were long-lasting Mongol/Turkic influences in the Ukraine/Crimean area even after reabsorption into Russia; the Cossacks (fr. Kazakhs) fought much like Keshiks with firearms (and inspired the same sort of fear in their opponents). One way that I had thought of representing the conquest, given the utter destruction that the Mongols left behind them, was having an event that reduces all cities to size 1 and destroys 80% of infrastructure - but also provides the Kievan civ with a substantial force of Keshiks or Keshik-type units to go after Novgorod, Moscow, Lithuania, Poland, and Hungary - essentially what the Mongols did. This would represent a shift from a more peaceful/economic society into a purely militarized one - and if we put city-razing into the UHV, we end up re-creating the historical power vacuum in Eastern Europe in the late Middle Ages and preventing the Kiev-centered civ (now the Khanate of Kiev, or Zaporhozian Host, or whatever) from growing geographically huge, as it won't have the infrastructure to avoid collapse. A real challenge to play, and possibly to code - but sounds reasonable, right?

I was thinking both (corp = knightly order and civ) might be possible, though that would require some thinking about. As it stands, I'd rather add civs elsewhere too, but if people really want more civs in the area of Germany, its the logical candidate.

The reason I've leaned towards knightly order rather than civ has to do with the origins of the Teutonic Order - they were a crusading order that was invited to Germany to Christianize Lithuania and the Baltic regions, and they ended up being the dominant power in the neighborhood for a few hundred years. If we're going to have Poland/Lithuania and Austrasia, I think that they end up squeezed for land - and there's a great way to incorporate them historically by making a German UHV 'spread Teutonic Order to 3 Baltic cities (Gdansk, Konigsberg, Vilnius/Wilno, Strahlsund, Riga, etc) by ____'. 'Keep the Teutonic Order out of your cities' would also make a decent goal for Poland/Lithuania.

But as you said, arguments can be made for both.

Sounds like Europa Universalis III (fun game :goodjob: ) would be a good model to base your names on (including the HRE title)...

About Italy: I think it's better to avoid Venice (make it independent but strong) and put Kingdom of Sardinia. It was the heart of the unification of Italy, after all. Obviously, if we can have both it would be perfect.
Genova may be a good choice too

The current theory I (and others) are operating under is the mod will end by or before 1800. At which point Italy doesn't become unified within the timespan of the mod.

Really, if the mod went to 1900, there would be a couple of other civs (Prussia for example) that would have to be included, but would spawn *really late* and have little time to play. I think Sardinia falls into the same category.

Venetia is far more important as an independent entity than Sardinia in the grand scheme of things, especially over the timespan being considered. AFAIK, Genoa controlled the island of Sardinia for much of this time period.

The current theory I (and others) are operating under is the mod will end by or before 1800. At which point Italy doesn't become unified within the timespan of the mod.

Really, if the mod went to 1900, there would be a couple of other civs (Prussia for example) that would have to be included, but would spawn *really late* and have little time to play. I think Sardinia falls into the same category.

Venetia is far more important as an independent entity than Sardinia in the grand scheme of things, especially over the timespan being considered. AFAIK, Genoa controlled the island of Sardinia for much of this time period.

Yeah, Sardinia was Genoan for much of the era of the mod, and we may want to represent that (and possibly other territorial goals?) as one of their UHVs. As Venice and Genoa frequently competed for island territory in the Mediterranean, it might be good to give them a competing UHV for control of Crete, Cyprus, Rhodes, and Sardinia for Genoa/Dalmatia for Venice.

I think that the Kingdom of Nuestria should be the Kingdom of Austrasia, as that was Charlemagnes kingdom, and his kingdom was the 'modern' French. Also, the Eastern Roman Empire should become the Byzantine Empire around 570 AD because Justinian is refered to as 'The Last Roman Emperor' by some sources.
Lastly, how are you going to be showing revolts and uprisings? Your own units shouldnt randomly go to the other side, that is the least fun of aspect of RFC, the deserter effect.

I think that the Kingdom of Nuestria should be the Kingdom of Austrasia, as that was Charlemagnes kingdom, and his kingdom was the 'modern' French.

Clovis's kingdom (First Merovingian King) comprised Neustria (N. France, centered on Paris), Austrasia (Eastern France and Western Germany, including the low countries, centered on the Rhine), Aquitaine (Southern France), and eventually Burgundy (SEastern France). Charlemagne's kingdom would include all this (in Carolignian hands because of Charles Martel) + N. Italy and additional parts of Germany (such as Saxony after much warfare). Where did you hear Austrasia was Charlemagne's kingdom - it was a small part of it, and he was never "King of Austrasia" - he was King of All Franks.

Further, Charlemagne's kingdom is the precursor to both France and Germany, and spun off a number of Italian city-states. To call it France is inappropriate. France was somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 Charlemagne's kingdom, and most of it wouldn't be France until near the modern period. Ie, Occitania (incl Aquitaine) wasn't a french possession for quite awhile, and Burgundy was a separate powerful Dukedom with no allegiance to France until the 16th or 17th century. The immediate precursor to France is West Francia, which is ~1/3 of Charlemagne's kingdom.


Also, the Eastern Roman Empire should become the Byzantine Empire around 570 AD because Justinian is refered to as 'The Last Roman Emperor' by some sources.

Byzantine is a term used by western Europeans to describe the Eastern Roman Empire, as is "Greek". They continued to refer to themselves as Romans throughout their history.


Lastly, how are you going to be showing revolts and uprisings? Your own units shouldnt randomly go to the other side, that is the least fun of aspect of RFC, the deserter effect.

That is part of RFC and will not be changed. New civs need a chance to get started. It may be less of a problem than in normal RFC because there will be fewer civs wanting to occupy the exact same territory, and possibly fewer chances to claim someone else's territory before they spawn. Regardless, where it happens is predictable in RFC, and will be in this - don't take territory you know will flip!

Other independent cities:

From start:
Firenze/Florence (Italy)
Milan (Italy)
Burdigala -> Bordeaux (Occitania)
Massilia/Marseilles
Narbo -> Narbonne or Barcino -> Barcelona
Caralis (Sardinia): minor. worth having?
Rhodes? Or should that be part of the ERE/Byzantine empire?

Appearance around 1000 AD:
Smolensk (Russia) ~
Halicz/Halych (Galicia)
Konigsberg or Memel? Reval?

Note: there really aren't that many candidates for independent cities in Eastern Europe during this era, unless we want to force Russia to conquer all of its cities rather than founding them - there were many small (one-city) principalities, such as Tver, Yarolslavl, Rostov, Pskov, etc, but this would force Russian expansion to be military rather than settlement-based.

Cities Belonging to Independents: not complete
*Novgorod
*Dublin
*Belfast
*Edinburough
*Gdansk

Input most definitely appreciated. I know I'm missing Occitania (which will need at least one), Wales, and huge tracts of Eastern Europe. Not to mention Italy (which? Milan and Pava (spelling?) come to mind).


I am surprised and pleased to see you mention Occitania. I would suggest Toulouse (Tolosa in Occitan) for Occitania, maybe push it a bit SE if the Spanish get too close...

Is there a way to tone down the spread of culture? I'm too tired to explain why right now... But I thought it was an interesting idea...

Oh, about Tolosa... Both it and Barcelona would be an interesting choice for indies... as vestiges of the Visigoths that thrived in SW France and E Spain. Charlemagne treated that area as a unit when he divided the empire.

Anyway, I'm gonna stop rumbling and go to bed...

Bravo everyone on the work you're doing on a Europe mod/scenario, the only (perhaps unsolicited) advice that I would give: is it really necessary for so many name changes? Sure, it's historically accurate if you happen to believe that there is a direct lineage through these different states (example: Neustria to West Francia), but it's going to be pretty confusing and frankly off-putting to players who are interested in your game. And is it really necessary for name changes to occur so often and in quick succession (example: Magyars in 900, then the Kingdom of Hungary only 100 years later)? I know you've all put A LOT of thought into all this, and Lord knows that I'll play it either way, but I just think you might be limiting the amount of people who are going to download and enjoy your work. Just my two cents, I hope that I haven't caused any offense.

1) How can any list be official? No one has seen Vince-G in that thread in ages, who was perhaps the only arbiter of official. This list is the most recent, has been modified in response to feedback from other interested participants, and is the result of the fusion of my initial list with the only other complete civ list provided. As such, its the closest thing to a consensus list we have.

Vince is missing from about a week I think. If now I open a new thread with my own list as you did, that will be the most recent. Do you think it makes sense, because it doesn't to me.


3) Based on what? Since about the 3rd page of the original thread just about everyone seems to have been onboard with a 500AD start. All that "mess" can be Independent cities or Barbarians, and there are something like 7 starting civs, with more than half the civs starting before 870. Since RFC starts with *4*, that seems to be perfectly reasonable. It also makes far more sense to start at or before the rising of most of the civs (Eastern Roman Empire being obviously impossible to do so with), not after they've already become established.

I think it was only 3 people to agree and even with some reserves. It's much better to start after the death of Charlemagne, when the Barbarian Kingdoms become more stable. In the other case considering Longobards independent but Danes a civ is pure arbitrary discrimination. Choices should follow a scheme and make sense, the reason why I think starting atleast after Charlemagne is better is because the Frankish civ is notably missing and split into provinces of this very civ, which should start with vast possessions, not to mention the Arabs; a post Charlemagne start would be more balanced. Lastly, 500-900 is what is commonly referred to as the Dark Ages, meaning we know very little about this period.


4) Arrows represent dynamic names based (at least loosely, and sometimes rather precisely) upon historical name changes (rounded to the nearest 10 generally).

Ok but on what basis will the name change. I mean why would Neustria become France if for example it expands east into Germany but looses land (in France) in favor of the spanish or english ?

Vince is missing from about a week I think. If now I open a new thread with my own list as you did, that will be the most recent. Do you think it makes sense, because it doesn't to me.

This list has received substantial feedback and has been altered to accomodate a number of viewpoints, which lends it some legitimacy. If you have *constructive* suggestions to make, please do so. Arguing that the civ list should be set in stone based on the first proposed civ list in the other thread is not a productive way to move the project forward, rather that's a good way for the project to die because we won't be able to do *anything*.

This thread was created because multiple issues were getting jumbled in the previous thread and it was losing focus. Similarly, the new map thread is an attempt to separate out map discussion. The existence of that thread doesn't guarantee that will be *the* map, only that its the current contender. Likewise, this is not *the* civ list, but is the best rough draft currently available.

Edit: Vince-G's last post in the main thread was on Oct 30th, about 1.5 weeks ago, and 5 pages ago.


I think it was only 3 people to agree and even with some reserves. It's much better to start after the death of Charlemagne, when the Barbarian Kingdoms become more stable. In the other case considering Longobards independent but Danes a civ is pure arbitrary discrimination. Choices should follow a scheme and make sense, the reason why I think starting atleast after Charlemagne is better is because the Frankish civ is notably missing and split into provinces of this very civ, which should start with vast possessions, not to mention the Arabs; a post Charlemagne start would be more balanced. Lastly, 500-900 is what is commonly referred to as the Dark Ages, meaning we know very little about this period.

Those are also the people who are actually making productive comments and doing anything to move the project forward. And the one objection was conceeded quickly. They were also the only people to respond in a timely manner. (In particular, Mitsho originally was envisioning a 750 AD start, but conceeded the point. All those commenting at the time approved of the list. As the list went without substantive comment for a week after that, it seemed reasonable to assume it was a good starting point and move on).

If you would like to make a case for the Lombards as a civ, please do so. I myself strongly favor a pan-Norse civ, but arguments can (and have) been made for multiple Norse civs, and should not be dismissed out of hand, especially as some of those have been made from a balance standpoint.

A unified Frankish civ is like saying France/Germany/Netherlands should all be one civ. In terms of its people and the continuity of ruling title, there is a strong case for Neustria -> West Francia -> France. (I'll note that the Kings of France continued to call themselves Rex Francorum, literally King of the Franks, until the 14th century). Similarly, Austrasia -> East Francia can be supported, and East Francia -> Germany can be strongly supported. I've already proposed an idea of how Charlemagne can be handled with a timed event that effects politics in the area which was his empire (see main thread).

I'm curious how you think a post-charlemagne start would be any differently balanced than this? Instead of Neustria and Austrasia we have West and East Francia in virtually identical geographic positions. We still have Burgundy (possibly titled Middle Francia). The only differences I can see are (1) the "arab" civ is now starting, as are the Venetians, the Spanish (as Kingdom of Asturias), and the al-andalusians. This doesn't change the balance of power in Western Europe at all, and doesn't really change the balance of power for anyone else as they'd spawn with appropriate forces in a 500AD start. We've also skipped some of the defining events for the middle ages, like the Battle of Poitiers.

Finally, they're called the Dark Ages because the 'light' of greek and roman philosophy and education was lost from western europe, not because we're lacking knowledge of them. We actually have reasonably good information starting in at least the 6th century, especially in terms of politics and military conflict. Certainly no worse than the early centuries of the middle ages. We may know less about the role of personalities in those decisions, but that's totally irrelevant to a civ style game.


Ok but on what basis will the name change. I mean why would Neustria become France if for example it expands east into Germany but looses land (in France) in favor of the spanish or english ?

What does the name have to do with that? If we call them France from the beginning they could still expand into Germany and lose lands to the Spanish or English. Nothing about the name of the civ dictates that they will unfailingly control something within the boundaries of modern france. We can motivate players to do so by structuring an appropriate UHV, and motivate the AI to do so by giving it a strong preference and cultural advantage within French territory, just like the RFC AI's behavior is controlled. Dynamic civ names is an attempt to assign historically appropriate names to civilizations, not to ensure that they necessarily settle their historical territory without fail. I mean, in RFC if you wanted to be really silly you could have Carthage found its capital at Rome - nothing is stopping you. And you'd still be Carthage and not Rome.

I have updated the civ list, notably adding suggestions for independent cities to it.

I have also moved Kiev and Genoa to full civs, in an attempt to try to reach a fully-enumerated (22+independents) version of the civ list. Most importantly, there is still room for 1 civ if anyone has any suggestions. Kingdom of Sicily is currently the best of those seriously proposed (Alternately, the Normans).

Let me emphasize that civs included is the far more important topic of discussion than name transition dates, the names themselves, and starting dates.

For an early Eastern European civ, why not Great Moravia? Or would it be gone too quickly?

If bulgaria or hungary isnt added, either should be added. There could also be the dynamic name change between. And I know that they are two separate and different civs, but they could probably be the same.

Based on the states and cities already slated to be included, I think the only glaring absence would be Prussia.

This list has received substantial feedback and has been altered to accomodate a number of viewpoints, which lends it some legitimacy. If you have *constructive* suggestions to make, please do so. Arguing that the civ list should be set in stone based on the first proposed civ list in the other thread is not a productive way to move the project forward, rather that's a good way for the project to die because we won't be able to do *anything*.

It has been commented by less than 5 people and I made valid and constructive arguments about a post Charlemagne start.

This thread was created because multiple issues were getting jumbled in the previous thread and it was losing focus. Similarly, the new map thread is an attempt to separate out map discussion. The existence of that thread doesn't guarantee that will be *the* map, only that its the current contender. Likewise, this is not *the* civ list, but is the best rough draft currently available.

Unlike YOUR proposed civ list, none argued about St Lucifer's proposed map, though.

Those are also the people who are actually making productive comments and doing anything to move the project forward. And the one objection was conceeded quickly. They were also the only people to respond in a timely manner. (In particular, Mitsho originally was envisioning a 750 AD start, but conceeded the point. All those commenting at the time approved of the list. As the list went without substantive comment for a week after that, it seemed reasonable to assume it was a good starting point and move on).

So if I say I don't agree with your proposal I am not beeing constructive and slowing the project, all right. I started commenting on the civ list later because I was waiting to see the reaction of Vince, a behavior that stands much more correct than just deciding stuff without the project starter, in my eyes, you have absolutely no right to blame me for this reason.

If you would like to make a case for the Lombards as a civ, please do so. I myself strongly favor a pan-Norse civ, but arguments can (and have) been made for multiple Norse civs, and should not be dismissed out of hand, especially as some of those have been made from a balance standpoint.

No, I don't want to make a case for the Longobards, I want to make a case for 843 AD. Longobards are very important in italian history btw, and italian history is important in european history, apparently more than the danish one, with all due respect of course.

A unified Frankish civ is like saying France/Germany/Netherlands should all be one civ.

But the Frankish civ was one civ, so it would be more correct historically. That's the main reason why the mod should start after Charlemagne

I'm curious how you think a post-charlemagne start would be any differently balanced than this? Instead of Neustria and Austrasia we have West and East Francia in virtually identical geographic positions. We still have Burgundy (possibly titled Middle Francia). The only differences I can see are (1) the "arab" civ is now starting, as are the Venetians, the Spanish (as Kingdom of Asturias), and the al-andalusians.

This is ONLY ? How will you deal with Italy for example, which was almost entirely in the hands of Longobards and Byzantines ?

This doesn't change the balance of power in Western Europe at all

Man, you are so stubborn in your points that you can't even read what I write. I was saying that a post Charlemagne start is more balanced than having the Frankish civ and the Arabs launching incursions in Occitania, both things though should be due in your proposed start if you want this mod to be historical.

Finally, they're called the Dark Ages because the 'light' of greek and roman philosophy and education was lost from western europe, not because we're lacking knowledge of them.

Who told you ? Do you see light in Europe in the following centuries ? This is a period of subsequent barbarian invasions throughout all Europe, kingdoms rise and fall and we know very little about them, since these people didn't appreciate written history as much as the Romans.

Dynamic civ names is an attempt to assign historically appropriate names to civilizations, not to ensure that they necessarily settle their historical territory without fail. I mean, in RFC if you wanted to be really silly you could have Carthage found its capital at Rome - nothing is stopping you. And you'd still be Carthage and not Rome.

You wouldn't have time :P
These countries changed names for historical reasons that may not recreate in the game, that's what I meant. Plus, having France called West Francia (half latin half english name btw) and Germany East Francia is confusing for the average player which is not so knowledgeable as you.

It has been commented by less than 5 people and I made valid and constructive arguments about a post Charlemagne start.

For the sake of delaying the inevitable, I am far more interested in the civ list than the start time at the moment. I don't think a 500 or 840 AD start will actually change the civ list at all.


So if I say I don't agree with your proposal I am not beeing constructive and slowing the project, all right. I started commenting on the civ list later because I was waiting to see the reaction of Vince, a behavior that stands much more correct than just deciding stuff without the project starter, in my eyes, you have absolutely no right to blame me for this reason.

All I'm saying is denying the legitimacy of continuing discussion is not being constructive.


No, I don't want to make a case for the Longobards, I want to make a case for 843 AD. Longobards are very important in italian history btw, and italian history is important in european history, apparently more than the danish one, with all due respect of course.

But the Frankish civ was one civ, so it would be more correct historically. That's the main reason why the mod should start after Charlemagne

Except within the Frankish civ are proto-french and proto-german civs. Neustria and Austrasia were politically separate more often than united. And Burgundy was even more frequently a distinct political entity in this time period.

Now, it would be a perfectly reasonable position that they could all start as "Franks", and have civs spawn from within them. The Franks would morph into another civ (presumably french, although Burgundy could also make sense). Examing that against a more standard multi-civ option would be an interesting discussion.


This is ONLY ? How will you deal with Italy for example, which was almost entirely in the hands of Longobards and Byzantines ?

Cities under 'Byzantine' control will start under Eastern Roman control. Others will be Independents. Possibly some cities will revolt from Eastern Roman control to Independent at pre-defined times.


Man, you are so stubborn in your points that you can't even read what I write. I was saying that a post Charlemagne start is more balanced than having the Frankish civ and the Arabs launching incursions in Occitania, both things though should be due in your proposed start if you want this mod to be historical.

I think we can start with multiple "Frankish" civs, as that will better capture the political dynamics of the period. Those civs will eventually become france and germany (and Burgundy - but it also starts called that), but they were infrequently unified even when nominally the same cultural group. (And I say nominally because you do have the split between Salian and Ripurian Franks, mostly mirrored in the Neustria-Austrasia split.)

And I want to see the "arabs" (Actually Al-Andalusians) launch an incursion into Occitania. Why do you think I keep mentioning the Battle of Poitiers? If you saw my trial suggestion for a "french" UHV, I wanted them to take Barcelona from the Al-Andalusians. Arab-Frankish conflict would be interesting.


Who told you ? Do you see light in Europe in the following centuries ? This is a period of subsequent barbarian invasions throughout all Europe, kingdoms rise and fall and we know very little about them, since these people didn't appreciate written history as much as the Romans.

The term was coined by Petrarch in the 1330s as an indictment of the post-Roman period for a cultural failure. It was used metaphorically, and made the Classical period an era of light because of its wealth of cultural achievements, and the one that followed (which he believed he was still living in) an era of darkness due to cultural pauperism.


You wouldn't have time :P

Ok, now I just *have* to try. You could certainly do it as Greece (but why would you want to?) My point is that non-historical boundaries happen - we can only attempt to discourage them. (Whoever heard of India attacking China with War Elephants?)


These countries changed names for historical reasons that may not recreate in the game, that's what I meant. Plus, having France called West Francia (half latin half english name btw) and Germany East Francia is confusing for the average player which is not so knowledgeable as you.

With the possible exception of Ukraine, I don't think any of them have name changes we would really be able to simulate the reasons for in CivIV. I suppose some (like Crown of Castile) we could do by cities held if such a thing is possible.

I wouldn't object to entirely Latin names. That's actually what they're called in English though, even if the second half is verbatim latin. (Heck, I wouldn't object to all countries being named in their own language and alphabet, but I would imagine that would confuse the heck out of a lot of people - myself included if i ended up playing, say, Russia).

Regardless, treat the name transitions and dates as merely data for now.

Priority 1: civs included
Priority 2: start time
Priority 3: Name transitions
...
Priority N: UHVs/UUs/UBs (need to discuss novel game features first)

So I guess my primary question to you is: Are you happy with the civs included (Don't think of them as Neustria or Austrasia, for example, think of them as France and Germany. The early incarnation is tied in with start time). Is there any civ you think deserves to be included and is not? Is there any civ (in the broad scope) included who you think doesn't deserve to be?

Based on the states and cities already slated to be included, I think the only glaring absence would be Prussia.

Prussia would be a mere blip at the end of the scenario. Not enough play time to make them worthwhile.

The term was coined by Petrarch in the 1330s as an indictment of the post-Roman period for a cultural failure. It was used metaphorically, and made the Classical period an era of light because of its wealth of cultural achievements, and the one that followed (which he believed he was still living in) an era of darkness due to cultural pauperism.

I believe your source is the English Wikipedia, from which you can take this:
"When the term Dark Ages is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" to us only because of the paucity of historical records compared with later times".

The point on name change is why do it ? If it has no meaning in the game it's pointless, it's meaningful in a History book, but we're not replaying history, we're playing a game, so if there is a well implemented mechanism for name change such as "event > name change", it makes sense, but changing name only becaues in that date in the real History this happened... looks a bit pointless first, and confusing to the average player who sees the name of civs changed and doesn't know why.

I believe your source is the English Wikipedia, from which you can take this:
"When the term Dark Ages is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" to us only because of the paucity of historical records compared with later times".

The point on name change is why do it ? If it has no meaning in the game it's pointless, it's meaningful in a History book, but we're not replaying history, we're playing a game, so if there is a well implemented mechanism for name change such as "event > name change", it makes sense, but changing name only becaues in that date in the real History this happened... looks a bit pointless first, and confusing to the average player who sees the name of civs changed and doesn't know why.

I only actually needed Wikipedia for the year. And besides, as the article goes on to say, we actually know quite a lot about that time period now.

The point is to be an historical simulator. And some of them may very well be tied to events (for example, if we do use a series of Charlemagne events to mimic the unification of europe under Charlemagne, then the change to West Francia would come about by the "Death of Louis the Pious" event, or something similar). We've barely discussed gameplay features, it seems ridiculous to object to extra data being listed solely because it isn't clear yet how or why that data should come into effect.

On a more general note, and to keep the project from horribly stalling, I propose we run with the civ list as is. Which brings us to the debate on what timespan.

I still stand by 500-1750, and no later than 1800. My reasoning has already been explained elsewhere, and as a quick glance at the proposed start dates reveals its perfectly plausible to start in 500 from a number of civs standpoint.

Call it the Migration Era. Technicly the term 'Dark Age' is obsolete. One thing I would do is look at the civs chosen for the European Middle Ages Mod scenerio. I have played the mod many times and it has good civ choices. I would have it start a 800 Christmas Day, when Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor. This way the Byzantines wont be to strong, it cuts down on all the 'barbarian' civs like the Vandals and Visigoths, and it shuts up this whole Dark Ages debate. Although if you need still additional help, look at MTW2 for civs and timeline. It is very accurate.

Double Post

I'm for using the current civ list, with the possibility of adding the Normans in Sicily and Normandy (with a UP appropriate to the geographic split).

I'll second the 500 start date, and suggest that we run it until 1800. I think it's important to simulate the dynamism and chaos of that time, and I think we'd lose some of that with a later start. It might be interesting to run the scenario into the industrial era and to the first world war, but that's enough of a shift that I think we're better off leaving it alone.

I've been playing a game on the current map, after cleaning it and reorganizing the starting plots to those we had agreed on. Standard/BTS civ won't let me put all of the civs on the map at once - but I've been amazed at how, starting from their intended starting points, the AI civs have largely expanded into their historical areas. Now, they all started at the same time, which isn't what we're going for - but the outcome was remarkable. The Americans, playing as Switzerland, expanded briefly, lost a couple of cities, and went pacifist/neutral; India, playing as Venice, took the Adriatic coast, Sicily, and Crete; Japan as Genoa took the Piedmont region and Carthage - after several world wars, the map isn't as pretty as it once was, but it seems to work pretty well.

I think that I'm going to end up making the Maghrib and Scandinavia less city-friendly - as things currently stand, Sweden can support four powerful cities without much threat of foreign invasion, and that gives them a substantial advantage. I'd like to preserve the geography faithfully, but I think that gameplay will probably win out.

England needs company on the British Isles. Is there scope for a separate Scots and / or Irish 'civ'?

'Netherlands' and 'England' seem a bit anachronistic from first appearance. I don't know what to suggest for Netherlands, Flanders being elsewhere than Holland. England should be 'Anglo-Saxons' until about 930AD.

We've barely discussed gameplay features, it seems ridiculous to object to extra data being listed solely because it isn't clear yet how or why that data should come into effect.

What is ridiculous is proposing a gameplay feature (in this case name change to Civs) but not accepting any question with the excuse that it hasn't been explained how will it work yet. Go on and don't answer my question about how will it work. In my probably silly mind, when I think of feature I also think how to implement it, because it's simply a waste of time to propose a feature if then it is not practically and efficiently implementable in the game.

On a more general note, and to keep the project from horribly stalling, I propose we run with the civ list as is. Which brings us to the debate on what timespan.

I still stand by 500-1750, and no later than 1800. My reasoning has already been explained elsewhere, and as a quick glance at the proposed start dates reveals its perfectly plausible to start in 500 from a number of civs standpoint.

Yeah, I suggest you take this civ list and go on with whatever you wish for your mod. I'll eagerly wait for its completion in order to test it (assuming I will be allowed to at least do that).

Well i think we can change the civs list later after testing and then have a look once more at the historical correctness. I think its now more important to get some things done so we have a base we can build this mod on. ;)

So lets see what we have to write and what we got. I put this in a spoiler to make this posting a little shorter. :D


Current Civ List:
Western Europe (4)
Kingdom of Neustria (500 AD) -> West Francia (840 AD) -> France (990 AD)
England (500 AD) -> Great Britain (1700 AD or by cities held?)
Netherlands (1050 AD)
Burgundy (500 AD) Copy from Charlesmagne

Iberian Peninsula (3)
Kingdom of Asturias (720 AD) -> Leon (920 AD) -> Crown of Castile (1230 AD)
-> Empire of Spain (1520 AD)
Portugal (1100 AD)
Al-Andalus (700 AD)Copy of Arabs?

North & Central Europe (5)
Norse: Danes (500 AD) -> Calmar (?) -> Sweden (?) Take this one? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=7282)
Kingdom of Austrasia (500 AD) -> East Francia (840 AD) -> Kingdom of Germany
(920 AD) -> Germanic States (1260 AD) I sugest for the first tests we take HRE and redo it later
Lechia (970 AD) -> Poland (???) -> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1570 AD) Take this one? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=6837)
Austria/House of Habsburg (1160 AD or 1280 AD) Take this one? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=6915)
Old Swiss Confederacy (1290 AD) -> Switzerland (1650 AD?) Take this one? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=6263)

Eastern Europe (6)
Eastern Roman Empire (500 AD) Its Byzantium, isnt it?
Kievan Rus (860 AD) -> Principality of Chernigov (1080 AD) -> Zaporozhian
Host? (1650 AD) -> Russian Empire (By Cities Held)
Vladimir-Suzdal (1090 AD) -> Grand Duchy of Moscow (1320 AD) -> Tsardom of
Russia (1547 AD) -> Russian Empire (By cities held)
Magyars (900 AD) -> Kingdom of Hungary (1000 AD) Take this one? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=6949)
Ottoman Empire (1300 AD)
Umayyad Caliphate (660 AD) -> Abbasid Caliphate (750 AD) -> Fatimid
Caliphate (970 AD) -> Ayyubid Dynasty (1170 AD) -> Mamluk Sultanate (
1250 AD) Take this as Arabs?

Italy (3)
Papal States (500 AD) Take it from Charlesmagne?
Republic of Venetia (800 AD)
Republic of Genoa (1000 AD)

Additional Candidates:
Kingdom of Sicily (1000 AD)

So we have to do at least Venetia, Genoa and the additional Sicily. Of course only if we take the civs from other mods/moders. Otherwise we have to do Burgundy, Al-Andalus, Norse, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Switzerland too.

What is ridiculous is proposing a gameplay feature (in this case name change to Civs) but not accepting any question with the excuse that it hasn't been explained how will it work yet. Go on and don't answer my question about how will it work. In my probably silly mind, when I think of feature I also think how to implement it, because it's simply a waste of time to propose a feature if then it is not practically and efficiently implementable in the game.

Hold on a second, I thought that this feature was implemented in the next RFC update? Nobody is accusing you of being silly - implementation issues are going to be a big part of this, and we're going to have to figure out what's workable and what isn't. If the coding involved to implement a feature basically involves rewriting the whole game, clearly that's not workable. If it involves adapting an existing feature, which is what I think we're all trying for, why not keep it under consideration?

Yeah, I suggest you take this civ list and go on with whatever you wish for your mod. I'll eagerly wait for its completion in order to test it (assuming I will be allowed to at least do that).

I can understand why you feel marginalized here, but please try not to take things so personally. At this point, all we're trying to do is move things forward - I don't think that anything is completely set in stone, but we have to make some assumptions in order to be able to get anywhere from where we currently stand. One of the first sets of assumptions we're going to have to make is based on the map; a second on the civ list. Are either of those final? I view them both as subject to change, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be working to develop the ideas that we currently have. If we have to scrap some of that work, that's perfectly acceptable. I mean, I spent probably 12-15 hours tediously translating the map 12 squares east - and I don't have any guarantee that we're even going to use it. If we have to scrap it and start over, I'll be frustrated, but it might not work out. Rather than have an argument that runs for weeks over what to do about the HRE, why don't you come up with a leader/city/title list for a proposed HRE, a UHV, UB, UP, and UU? If it seems like a better plan than what we have going for 'Germany', or if the HRE title being an AP function winds up being unimplementable, I'd be willing to look at the HRE issue again.

I mostly don't want to get stuck on any one thing. I think that there's enough planning and enough work to be done (and enough lack of formal guidance/leadership) that we're better off planning out as much as we can - we're still pretty far from putting it into code, and even then, how many times to do you have to code something before you get a final version?

I value your input, and hope that you keep contributing. I believe that this statement holds true for everyone else working on the mod - otherwise, the obvious interpretation is that a couple of Americans showed up, cut off debate, announced that they were in charge, and proceeded to run things as they thought they should be done - and that's not going too well in other parts of the world, so it probably shouldn't be encouraged here.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=2821

Some nice (ans some lees nice) generic leaderheads for medieval (and ancient) civs. Could be used for the leaders of Neustria and Austrasia, old Engish, Celtic,...

I realy hope this MOD will come out. Your ideas all seem nice. Good luck.
I do hope you make a nice civic system. As Modern and ancient Civics need to be removed, you get the chance of differentiating the Medieval and exploration age civic real nice.

Hold on a second, I thought that this feature was implemented in the next RFC update?

A feature of name change has been implemented but to my understanding it's based on actual ingame events and not on historical dates.

Nobody is accusing you of being silly - implementation issues are going to be a big part of this, and we're going to have to figure out what's workable and what isn't. If the coding involved to implement a feature basically involves rewriting the whole game, clearly that's not workable. If it involves adapting an existing feature, which is what I think we're all trying for, why not keep it under consideration?

True, in general, but I'm not talking in general but on the specific feature of name change based on historical dates rather than on actual gameplay.


I can understand why you feel marginalized here, but please try not to take things so personally.

I'm not really taking it personal but I saw that my interventions are useless. The state of things is that those who launched this project are seldom commenting on other civfanatics ideas/proposals, and the (maybe obvious) result is that someone, who's very excited about it, is taking all of his proposals as granted and universally accepted, if I object or comment on something I'm either too late or too wrong, we even end up discussing on the meaning of the word Dark Ages. Given all this, it became pretty obvious to me that this project is now in the hands of Squirrelloid, and since I don't share his ideas and can't promote mine, I wish the project all the luck... I honestly have better stuff to do than look up what meaning did Petrarch give to the words Dark Ages some 700 years ago: I live in the present, where words can and usually have different meanings.

Bulgaria and Great Moravia both have more historical significance than the Kingdom of Sicily. Both can be like Babylonia in the original RFC... a quick UHV, and if you want to go further, you have a lot of adversity. Sort of like Burgundy.

Otherwise, from what I've seen in the civ list, unless it's Russian, it only seems to be added if it affected what today is modern, western industrialized Europe militarily somehow (namely France, England, Italy, Spain, and Germany). Yes, these countries today are important, but don't neglect the East too much; the Mongols can show up as a late civ (The Golden Horde); before falling apart later. They are also more important than Sicily. I would even argue against Genoa being more than an independent state. Same with the Normans.

uhm, how and why would they have more historical significance ?
Bulgaria was much less an independent state than the Kingdom of Sicily (or Genoa) during the scenario's timeframe, and Genoa was more influential in the Black Sea than Bulgaria was. England's flag is the same of Genoa (St. George's cross) because the English King asked and obtained to pay for this privilege so that English fleets would be protected by Genoans in those waters.

In regards to starting civilizations, this may be the wrong place to put this, but there is a very good map of Europe in 500 AD that you all might find useful:

http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_0500.html#%20here (http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_0500.html#%20here)

Would have posted it if it hadn't been so big.

In regards to starting civilizations, this may be the wrong place to put this, but there is a very good map of Europe in 500 AD that you all might find useful:

http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_0500.html#%20here (http://www.euratlas.com/history_europe/europe_map_0500.html#%20here)

Would have posted it if it hadn't been so big.

I've been using those maps for independent cities - they really are great. Thanks for sharing - I feel bad that I didn't think to.

uhm, how and why would they have more historical significance ?
Bulgaria was much less an independent state than the Kingdom of Sicily (or Genoa) during the scenario's timeframe, and Genoa was more influential in the Black Sea than Bulgaria was. England's flag is the same of Genoa (St. George's cross) because the English King asked and obtained to pay for this privilege so that English fleets would be protected by Genoans in those waters.


Bulgaria was independent for far longer (690 to 1400; granted, they were under Byzantine rule for 100 of those years - Genoa was independent from 1100-1394), and was much more important to the Black Sea trade than Genoa. The Bulgarians ended the Arab seige of Constantinople in the 800s. They brought the Orthodox faith to the Russians. They even threatened the Byzantine Empire for a time, and warred against the Crusader states, as well as Hungary. Bulgaria covered most of the Balkans at one point, which only the Ottomans and later Austria have been able to do since.
BTW, the St. George's cross comes from The Byzantine Empire and Georgia, with whom Genoa were trading partners with. England adopted it when they went on the Crusades, and having a St. George's Cross helps, when the most powerful navy in the Eastern Mediteranean (Greek fire) has the same flag.

Great Moravia was powerful enough that the Pope let them conduct their Church services in Slavic (only Latin, Greek, and Jewish were allowed for any other nation - Latin for Western Europe, Greek and Jewish for the East). They slowed German (East Francian) expansion to the east, and converted the Western Slavs to Roman Catholicism (which is why Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic isn't Orthodox, and there is a large Catholic minority in Ukraine). It was the first unified Slavic state, and was powerful enough that the East Francians had to ally with the Magyars to defeat them, so they could settle the Slavic lands.

I only counted the period when the Bulgars actually settled in Bulgaria and were not a migrating barbarian people like many others around. That means the Bulgarian Empire from (rough dates) around 700 to 1000 and again from 1200 to 1400. Genoa has been a Republic from 1096 to 1797.
It's true that St. George's cross comes from Byzantium (that had been occupying Genoa) but the King of England asked GENOA the permission to adopt it. I won't answer on Moravia and the rest, what I think is clear is that Bulgaria hasn't been any more influential in Europe than Genoa and your claims of the contrary are lacking any real foundation. Now if you want to make an argument pro-inclusion of Bulgaria it's perfectly fine, but saying it was far more important than Genoa as a support argument is just plain wrong, and I proposed Sicily not because it could have ruled the whole world, but because of the lack of anything in that area and because it could be fun to play with. You know, you can propose some civ without necessarily scorn others.

Genoa was a republic until 1797, but was basically a vassal from 1394 onwards. I do apologize if it looked as if I was trying to scorn the Republic; it wasn't intended. I was hoping to have some discussion on other countries. Otherwise, I was trying to bring in civs others wouldn't see because
(a) they didn't exist after the 1500's, which means they weren't around in the last 250 of a 1000-1200 year timeline (Burgundy notwithstanding),
(b) they were from Eastern Europe, which seems to be an area that, from the postings I've read, was either settled late, was barbarian, or wasn't recognized as an important part of Europe (Russia notwithstanding),
(c) unless they actually beat a Western European power at some point, they would be automatically overlooked, which seems to be a basic tenet amongst many (not all, and I stress this) posters.

That being said, I find it a little disconcerting that the one poster who commented on modders not taking other suggestions and using only their ideas is the only one who posted a counterpoint to my suggestions. It seems your point was proven, and the list was finalized as soon as it was put up on this post, no matter what other posters may have suggested.

Genoa was a republic until 1797, but was basically a vassal from 1394 onwards. I do apologize if it looked as if I was trying to scorn the Republic; it wasn't intended. I was hoping to have some discussion on other countries. Otherwise, I was trying to bring in civs others wouldn't see because
(a) they didn't exist after the 1500's, which means they weren't around in the last 250 of a 1000-1200 year timeline (Burgundy notwithstanding),
(b) they were from Eastern Europe, which seems to be an area that, from the postings I've read, was either settled late, was barbarian, or wasn't recognized as an important part of Europe (Russia notwithstanding),
(c) unless they actually beat a Western European power at some point, they would be automatically overlooked, which seems to be a basic tenet amongst many (not all, and I stress this) posters.

That being said, I find it a little disconcerting that the one poster who commented on modders not taking other suggestions and using only their ideas is the only one who posted a counterpoint to my suggestions. It seems your point was proven, and the list was finalized as soon as it was put up on this post, no matter what other posters may have suggested.

I'm sorry for not offering an opinion earlier - I've been in and out the last few days with a funeral and Thanksgiving holidays - the same may hold true for other American posters.

I thought Onedreamer articulated the concerns I had with Bulgaria pretty well - specifically the amount of time spent as a Byzantine or Turkish province, and the late end to the Bulgars' nomadic period. However, your points about control of the Balkans and importance in the Crusades (not to mention the importance of Bulgarian auxillaries as mercenaries and as parts of the Turkish army) are valid.

I'm a little less sold on Moravia, except perhaps as a precursor to Poland. Can you articulate your case in more detail? My main concerns with Moravia are that they weren't around for very long and that they occupy roughly the same historical territory as the Austria/Hapsburg homeland.

Eastern Europe could use more representation, and there's a fair amount of open space in the Balkans/Black Sea area. Rather than doing somersaults to code in the Normans, Bulgaria makes a lot of sense. UHVs: conquer/settle Balkans; take Constantinople, ?

I'm more into Bulgaria than Moravia, personally - Moravia would be more like a "Babylon" option, settle two or three cities and have a quick UHV before most other nations spawn. I was just trying to highlight a couple of ideas farther toward the old Eastern Bloc area. I do feel even the Mongols could have a place, though their UHV would probably be almost exactly like the one in RFC.

The last Bulgarian UHV could include the spread of Orthodox Christianity (if the Great Schism is going to be represented somehow), since they did actually bring it to many of the Eastern Slavs.

If your not sold on Bulgaria, they could be represented by either barbs or independents, and their invaisions to Byzantium could be represented with barb spawing.
And if you dont think Bulgaria was that powerful, for roughtly 100 years Byzantium was paying them tribute, and came within 1 day of taking Constantinople but then Khan Krum had a seziure and died of blood hemmorage. And if you still dont think they were that powerful, you need to read the either Byzantium: The Apogee, or Byzantium: The Decline and Fall.

NOTE: I am not a natonalistic Bulgarian or Hungarian, and I will accept it if there is a not room for them or they would be to short. If I remember correctly, they would spaw 770, fall to Basil II conquests ( i forget the year) and then respawn as Hungary, using the respawning of old civs mechanic in RFC.

I'm a little less sold on Moravia, except perhaps as a precursor to Poland. Can you articulate your case in more detail? My main concerns with Moravia are that they weren't around for very long and that they occupy roughly the same historical territory as the Austria/Hapsburg homeland.



The Hapsburg homeland occupy roughly the same historical territory as the Switzerland.

And the Great Moravia should be precrusor to Bohemie, if any. Poland have a very different roots, like the Hungaria, and Slovakia was state for first in the XX century.

I don't want to make the czech poles of RE, but there is something bleeding inside me when the Swithzerland is placed before Bohemia in historical signification.

I'm sure that many people here can argue that their city was a great site of learning/culture/religion/comerce. Well, can anyone else say that they managed to pass through a schizm-driven war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars), one hundred years before all cool kids started doing the same?

This could make a nice UHV for Bohemia. Found a religion before 1450, spread it to xx% of Europe before 1650, profit (perhaps Prague with the largest culture in 1xyz)

I'm not fond of Bohemia making it into the mod, but....Switzerland?

PS: And Bavoria should be at least independent Civ, they alwyas had little in common with rest of Prussia.

If we are to have 'the Habsburgs', and I don't know whether it's ever good practice to name a civilization after a dynasty, it makes little sense to have them start where their ancestral lands were but where they eventually took hold in Austria.

I'm not sure if the house of Hapsburg is good choice for civ either. I don't want to object ot their signaficance in European history, I'm just not sure that current civ system can handle the fedual dynastic system. There was a little of Austrian identity till post WWII world. They consider themself "German" or "HRE"

kicking around some ideas on the current civ list. I'm also coming to think Sweden is fractionally better deserving of a slot than Sicily :mischief: due to greater impact in the time period the Mod is planning to cover (since sicily is under the control of so many different states, it would be better as an independent).


Current Civ List:
Western Europe (4)
Kingdom of Neustria (500 AD) -> West Francia (840 AD) -> France (990 AD)
UP: The power of the Seigneur (Farms give +2 gold till discovery of nationalism)
UB: Salon
UU: Musketeer
UHV: Unite historical France/France to the Rhine, Largest population in 1600, Paris the most cultured city in 1800
England (500 AD) -> Great Britain (Cities held)
UP: Either keep the current UP or The Power of Cottage Industry (Cottages give +1 Hammer)
UB: Stock Exchange
UU: Redcoat
UHV: Build the HEIC and 2 other colonial wonders, first to industrial age, highest GDP and Production in 1820.
Netherlands (1050 AD)
UP: The Power of the Polders (can build improvements on marshes as of they were grass lands)
UB: Dike (maybe move this and levees to engineering?)
UU: East Indiaman/Swiss Pikeman
UHV: Never lose a city, first to discover economics, corporation and constitution, build the VOC and 1 other colonial wonder.
Burgundy (500 AD) (Is this meant to be more the kingdom or Duchy?)
UP: The power of Dynastic alliance (similar but different to the Hapsburg one): vassals, military alliances, etc grant extra stability.
UB: Burgundian Monastery (more expensive christian monastery gives and extra 10% sci and +1 happy from wine and wheat, Richard the Justiciar (really the first Burgundian Duke) often gave refuge to persecuted monks – best I could think of, also could be said to represent later Trappist monks in Belgium ;))
UU: Some sort of heavier knight.
UHV: Control land from the North Sea to the Med (i.e having control of a tile at every longitude between X and Y) by 1400, Make France and the Netherlands vassals (or destroy them) by 1500, control X wine resources by 1300.


Iberian Peninsula (3)
Kingdom of Asturias (720 AD) -> Leon (920 AD) -> Crown of Castile (1230 AD)
-> Empire of Spain (1520 AD)
UP: The power of the Conquista (x3 money on city conquest, removal of non-State religions)
UB: Citadel
UU: Conquistador
UHV: Unite Spain by 1450, Conquer/vassalise Portugal, Italy and North Africa by 1650, Spread Roman Catholic Christianity to 50%/Build Mexican and Incan Conquests
Portugal (1100 AD)
UP: The power of Indian Trade (Spices, Sugar, Silks, other colonial resources, all give +50% Trade route income in the Portuguese capital).
UB: Feitoria
UU: Carrack
UHV: Build 3 Colonial Wonders before 1600, have X gold in 1600, don’t lose a city before 1700
Al-Andalus (700 AD)
UP: The power of the (find Arabic word for farm): Can build farms without irrigation
UB: Madrassah (different from normal one, this one is an early and cheaper university that comes with Theology)
UU: Berber Cavalry (no movement costs on plains or deserts hills? Greater Withdrawal chance?)
UHV: Be the most scientifically advanced in 1000, Córdoba number one city in size and culture in 1000, never lose a city before 1400.

North & Central Europe (5)
Norse (500 AD) -> Union of Kalmar (1350) -> Denmark-Norway (1530).
UP: The power of Raid (same as the RFC one).
UB: Berserker
UU: Trading Post
UHV: Have X gold by 1500, conquer Britain by 1000, sink X ships
Kingdom of Austrasia (500 AD) -> East Francia (840 AD) -> Kingdom of Germany
(920 AD) -> Germanic States (1260 AD)
UP: The Power of the Marches (other cultures assimilate to the germans faster?)
UB: Rathaus
UU: Landsknecht
UHV: control X% of the map by 1000 (Otto the Great’s lands), have 6 cities east of the Vistula by 1400, build 6 cathedrals by 1600.
Lechia (970 AD) -> Poland (???) -> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1570 AD)
UP: The Power of Golden Liberty: Reduced distance corruption.
UB: Folwark (‘Farmhouse before the city’) Grocer which gives 10% extra gold and +1 health from wheat and corn.
UU: Hussar (Cavalry with greater withdrawal chance).
UHV: Largest land area and population in 1600, first to discover Constitution and Liberalism, No Polish-Lithuanian population under foreign control in 1800
Austria/House of Habsburg (1160 AD or 1280 AD)
UP: The power of inheritance (Independent cities much more likely to flip to Austria)
UB: The Schloss (castle in German, better name probably needed): Castle with an extra +5 culture.
UU: Landesschützen (Musketmen with free guerilla promotions)
UHV: Become Holy Roman Empire, Control Hungary, Bohemia, Southern Germany and northern Italy by 1620, Vienna as the most cultured city in 1800.
Old Swiss Confederacy (1290 AD) -> Switzerland (1650 AD?)
UP: Power of the Cantons: starts with Representation and Nationhood enabled.
UB: Landsgemeinden: Courthouse that gives +2 XP to melee and gunpowder units (‘provincal assembly’ where the canton meets and votes, in the olden days a Swiss male only needed to show his ceremonial sword or bayonet (hence the xp boost, representing Swiss militia service) to enter).
UU: Swiss Pikemen (Pikeman with Shock and Drill 2)
UHV: Conquer 6 cities before 1500, Never lose a city before 1800, have X gold in 1800

Eastern Europe (6)
Eastern Roman Empire (500 AD)
UP: I liked Ajidica’s ‘The Power of the Theodesian Walls’ give +100% defense to Constantinople that cannot be bombarded before gunpowder.
UB: Hippodrome
UU: Cataphract
UHV: Control Anatolia, The Balkans and Italy in 700 AD, Control Anatolia, The Balkans and Italy in 1200 AD, have X gold in 1200 AD
Kievan Rus (860 AD) -> Principality of Chernigov (1080 AD) -> Zaporozhian
Host? (1650 AD) -> Russian Empire (By Cities Held)
UP: The power of the Breadbasket: irrigated Farms give +1 Food (probably too powerful)
UB: Zernoskhovysche (Ukrainian for Granary): Replaces Granary, gives +1 trade route to show Ukrainian food exports.
UU: Cossack
UHV: Largest land area in 1000, all cities over size 4 have a monastery, aqueduct and courthouse in 1100, Survive to 1800
Vladimir-Suzdal (1090 AD) -> Grand Duchy of Moscow (1320 AD) -> Tsardom of
Russia (1547 AD) -> Russian Empire (By cities held)
UP: The power of general winter (same as RFC)
UB: ??
UU: Dvoryanin (a knight UU of some type ;))
UHV: Conquer Russia by 1600, Conquer the Russian empire (inc. Poland, Finland, Ukraine and the Causcuas) by 1850, Spread Orthodox Christianity to x%.
Magyars (900 AD) -> Kingdom of Hungary (1000 AD)
UP: Power of migration: Mounted units built with food prior to Theology.
UB: Magyar Stable (rip of the Mongolian Ger)
UU: Ungri Horsemen (rip of the Keshik)
UHV: Raze 6 cities by 1100, Control all the Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen in 1200, have 2 vassals by 1400
Ottoman Empire (1300 AD)
UP: Assimilation
UB: Hammam
UU: Janissary
UHV: All the ones from RFC work fine.
Umayyad Caliphate (660 AD) -> Abbasid Caliphate (750 AD) -> Fatimid
Caliphate (970 AD) -> Ayyubid Dynasty (1170 AD) -> Mamluk Sultanate (
1250 AD)
UP: Religion
UB: ‘Arab Courthouse’ gives extra gold depending on how much of the city is non-arab and the city size. Shows the tax on non-arabs and one of the drivign forces for expansion.
UU: Camel Archer
UHV: Spread Islam to 30%, Conquer North Africa, Spain and Italy by 1100 AD, Control 3 holy shrine cities in 1300 AD.

Italy (3)
Papal States (500 AD)
UP: The power of Papal Authority: +3 Relation with Roman Catholic States, +25 War weariness for Roman Catholics at war with the Pope.
UB: Seminary (university with 2 free priest specialists)
UU: Swiss Guard (Better macemen in some way)
UHV: Spread Roman Catholicism to 50%, X gold in X, Rome the most cultured city in 1800.
Republic of Venetia (800 AD)
UP: The power of Trade: 1 extra trade route in each city
UB: Venetian Arsenal (Drydock that comes with Guilds)
UU: Venetian Bireme (trireme with extra move and strength)
UHV: Control Northern Italy, Dalmatia, Greece and the Aegean by 1600 AD, have access to X different happiness resources by 1400 AD, have X gold by 1700 AD
Republic of Genoa (1000 AD)
UP: The power of Bargaining: Trade routes can go through enemy territory.
UB: Merchant House (Cheaper Bank that comes with Guilds)
UU: Genoan Galley (Galley with extra strength that can travel can travel rival territory
UHV: Control Northern Italy, Corsica, Sardinia, and Crimea by 1600 AD, have access to X different happiness resources by 1400 AD, have X gold by 1700 AD

The proposals aren' bad, but Portugal definetly needs a new UU, better ship deeply suck in this map.

I aslo don't see a protestant-based religion victory, so I will suggest adding bohemia as a playeble civ.

And the UHV for france are very...monarchistic. Why don't forcing x% of other civs to republic and free religion.

This also bring a good question. Have the civis been designed already?

Nice Work Disenfrancised. :)
Here some comments from me to some points:

Portugal (1100 AD)
UHV: Build 3 Colonial Wonders before 1600, have X gold in 1600, don’t lose a city before 1700
If we take the proposed map from st.lucifer it would be possible to add "Bring X Sugar resources under your control" (colonization of the azores and canary islands). And i agree to the point of Algeroth about the carrack.

Kingdom of Austrasia ...
UP: The Power of the Marches (other cultures assimilate to the germans faster?)
UB: Rathaus
UU: Landsknecht
UHV: control X% of the map by 1000 (Otto the Great’s lands), have 6 cities east of the Vistula by 1400, build 6 cathedrals by 1600.
UP isnt really fitting in my opinion but i dont know any better by now. And 6 catholic cathedrals would be many or did you think of the reformation?

Kievan Rus (860 AD) ...
UHV: Largest land area in 1000, all cities over size 4 have a monastery, aqueduct and courthouse in 1100, Survive to 1800
I would change it to "have x cities over size 4 with monastery etc." because otherwise everyone is whipping his cities down to size 3.

Papal States (500 AD)
UP: The power of Papal Authority: +3 Relation with Roman Catholic States, +25 War weariness for Roman Catholics at war with the Pope.
UB: Seminary (university with 2 free priest specialists)
UU: Swiss Guard (Better macemen in some way)
UHV: Spread Roman Catholicism to 50%, X gold in X, Rome the most cultured city in 1800.
Thought the Papals State is non-playable because its to mighty with the shrine of catholism.

Interesting work so far, but I think the Iberia list and dates of the Reqonquista need some expansion. For instance:
By 790, Asturias and Princ. of Barcelona in the North (30% of Iberia)
Al Andalus comprising 70%
By 900, Asturias, Galicia, Leon, Aragon, Navarre and Barcelona
Al Andalus still comprising about 60%
900-1150, as above plus Portugal
Al Andalus ( Golden age of the Caliphate of Cordoba)
still nearly 50%
by 1300, as above but Portugal expanded to present boundaries(roughly)
Al Andalus reduced to Kingdom of Granada (10%?)
1492 - capture of Granada by Ferdinand and Isabella
Unification of Spain by above (Aragon and Castile)
The points I'm trying to make are these;
The period of the Reqonquista (750-1492?) is long and complicated.
The major players in that were Asturias and Leon in the beginning
and later Aragon And Castille (Why haven't you mentioned Aragon?
For much of this period the Christian states were minor backwaters
in European terms while Al Andalus (esp the Cordoban Caliphate) had
an enormous influence on European culture and science. It's they who
should be emphasized in the game, culturally rather than the primitive
Christian mini-states. Cordoba was the 2nd largest city in the known
world (after Constantinople) in 1000AD with science, medicine and the
arts unrivalled anywhere in Europe. The game should reflect it's
importance at least up to about 1100AD.:) :goodjob:

I don't think Spain's goals should overlap so much with Portugal's. Historically they got on most of the time, and forcing them to fight each other for the win will be greatly to Portugal's disadvantage.

kicking around some ideas on the current civ list. I'm also coming to think Sweden is fractionally better deserving of a slot than Sicily :mischief: due to greater impact in the time period the Mod is planning to cover (since sicily is under the control of so many different states, it would be better as an independent).


Current Civ List:
Western Europe (4)
Kingdom of Neustria (500 AD) -> West Francia (840 AD) -> France (990 AD)
UP: The power of the Seigneur (Farms give +2 gold till discovery of nationalism)
UB: Salon
UU: Musketeer
UHV: Unite historical France/France to the Rhine, Largest population in 1600, Paris the most cultured city in 1800
England (500 AD) -> Great Britain (Cities held)
UP: Either keep the current UP or The Power of Cottage Industry (Cottages give +1 Hammer)
UB: Stock Exchange
UU: Redcoat
UHV: Build the HEIC and 2 other colonial wonders, first to industrial age, highest GDP and Production in 1820.
Netherlands (1050 AD)
UP: The Power of the Polders (can build improvements on marshes as of they were grass lands)
UB: Dike (maybe move this and levees to engineering?)
UU: East Indiaman/Swiss Pikeman
UHV: Never lose a city, first to discover economics, corporation and constitution, build the VOC and 1 other colonial wonder.
Burgundy (500 AD) (Is this meant to be more the kingdom or Duchy?)
UP: The power of Dynastic alliance (similar but different to the Hapsburg one): vassals, military alliances, etc grant extra stability.
UB: Burgundian Monastery (more expensive christian monastery gives and extra 10% sci and +1 happy from wine and wheat, Richard the Justiciar (really the first Burgundian Duke) often gave refuge to persecuted monks – best I could think of, also could be said to represent later Trappist monks in Belgium ;))
UU: Some sort of heavier knight.
UHV: Control land from the North Sea to the Med (i.e having control of a tile at every longitude between X and Y) by 1400, Make France and the Netherlands vassals (or destroy them) by 1500, control X wine resources by 1300.


Iberian Peninsula (3)
Kingdom of Asturias (720 AD) -> Leon (920 AD) -> Crown of Castile (1230 AD)
-> Empire of Spain (1520 AD)
UP: The power of the Conquista (x3 money on city conquest, removal of non-State religions)
UB: Citadel
UU: Conquistador
UHV: Unite Spain by 1450, Conquer/vassalise Portugal, Italy and North Africa by 1650, Spread Roman Catholic Christianity to 50%/Build Mexican and Incan Conquests
Portugal (1100 AD)
UP: The power of Indian Trade (Spices, Sugar, Silks, other colonial resources, all give +50% Trade route income in the Portuguese capital).
UB: Feitoria
UU: Carrack
UHV: Build 3 Colonial Wonders before 1600, have X gold in 1600, don’t lose a city before 1700
Al-Andalus (700 AD)
UP: The power of the (find Arabic word for farm): Can build farms without irrigation
UB: Madrassah (different from normal one, this one is an early and cheaper university that comes with Theology)
UU: Berber Cavalry (no movement costs on plains or deserts hills? Greater Withdrawal chance?)
UHV: Be the most scientifically advanced in 1000, Córdoba number one city in size and culture in 1000, never lose a city before 1400.

North & Central Europe (5)
Norse (500 AD) -> Union of Kalmar (1350) -> Denmark-Norway (1530).
UP: The power of Raid (same as the RFC one).
UB: Berserker
UU: Trading Post
UHV: Have X gold by 1500, conquer Britain by 1000, sink X ships
Kingdom of Austrasia (500 AD) -> East Francia (840 AD) -> Kingdom of Germany
(920 AD) -> Germanic States (1260 AD)
UP: The Power of the Marches (other cultures assimilate to the germans faster?)
UB: Rathaus
UU: Landsknecht
UHV: control X% of the map by 1000 (Otto the Great’s lands), have 6 cities east of the Vistula by 1400, build 6 cathedrals by 1600.
Lechia (970 AD) -> Poland (???) -> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1570 AD)
UP: The Power of Golden Liberty: Reduced distance corruption.
UB: Folwark (‘Farmhouse before the city’) Grocer which gives 10% extra gold and +1 health from wheat and corn.
UU: Hussar (Cavalry with greater withdrawal chance).
UHV: Largest land area and population in 1600, first to discover Constitution and Liberalism, No Polish-Lithuanian population under foreign control in 1800
Austria/House of Habsburg (1160 AD or 1280 AD)
UP: The power of inheritance (Independent cities much more likely to flip to Austria)
UB: The Schloss (castle in German, better name probably needed): Castle with an extra +5 culture.
UU: Landesschützen (Musketmen with free guerilla promotions)
UHV: Become Holy Roman Empire, Control Hungary, Bohemia, Southern Germany and northern Italy by 1620, Vienna as the most cultured city in 1800.
Old Swiss Confederacy (1290 AD) -> Switzerland (1650 AD?)
UP: Power of the Cantons: starts with Representation and Nationhood enabled.
UB: Landsgemeinden: Courthouse that gives +2 XP to melee and gunpowder units (‘provincal assembly’ where the canton meets and votes, in the olden days a Swiss male only needed to show his ceremonial sword or bayonet (hence the xp boost, representing Swiss militia service) to enter).
UU: Swiss Pikemen (Pikeman with Shock and Drill 2)
UHV: Conquer 6 cities before 1500, Never lose a city before 1800, have X gold in 1800

Eastern Europe (6)
Eastern Roman Empire (500 AD)
UP: I liked Ajidica’s ‘The Power of the Theodesian Walls’ give +100% defense to Constantinople that cannot be bombarded before gunpowder.
UB: Hippodrome
UU: Cataphract
UHV: Control Anatolia, The Balkans and Italy in 700 AD, Control Anatolia, The Balkans and Italy in 1200 AD, have X gold in 1200 AD
Kievan Rus (860 AD) -> Principality of Chernigov (1080 AD) -> Zaporozhian
Host? (1650 AD) -> Russian Empire (By Cities Held)
UP: The power of the Breadbasket: irrigated Farms give +1 Food (probably too powerful)
UB: Zernoskhovysche (Ukrainian for Granary): Replaces Granary, gives +1 trade route to show Ukrainian food exports.
UU: Cossack
UHV: Largest land area in 1000, all cities over size 4 have a monastery, aqueduct and courthouse in 1100, Survive to 1800
Vladimir-Suzdal (1090 AD) -> Grand Duchy of Moscow (1320 AD) -> Tsardom of
Russia (1547 AD) -> Russian Empire (By cities held)
UP: The power of general winter (same as RFC)
UB: ??
UU: Dvoryanin (a knight UU of some type ;))
UHV: Conquer Russia by 1600, Conquer the Russian empire (inc. Poland, Finland, Ukraine and the Causcuas) by 1850, Spread Orthodox Christianity to x%.
Magyars (900 AD) -> Kingdom of Hungary (1000 AD)
UP: Power of migration: Mounted units built with food prior to Theology.
UB: Magyar Stable (rip of the Mongolian Ger)
UU: Ungri Horsemen (rip of the Keshik)
UHV: Raze 6 cities by 1100, Control all the Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen in 1200, have 2 vassals by 1400
Ottoman Empire (1300 AD)
UP: Assimilation
UB: Hammam
UU: Janissary
UHV: All the ones from RFC work fine.
Umayyad Caliphate (660 AD) -> Abbasid Caliphate (750 AD) -> Fatimid
Caliphate (970 AD) -> Ayyubid Dynasty (1170 AD) -> Mamluk Sultanate (
1250 AD)
UP: Religion
UB: ‘Arab Courthouse’ gives extra gold depending on how much of the city is non-arab and the city size. Shows the tax on non-arabs and one of the drivign forces for expansion.
UU: Camel Archer
UHV: Spread Islam to 30%, Conquer North Africa, Spain and Italy by 1100 AD, Control 3 holy shrine cities in 1300 AD.

Italy (3)
Papal States (500 AD)
UP: The power of Papal Authority: +3 Relation with Roman Catholic States, +25 War weariness for Roman Catholics at war with the Pope.
UB: Seminary (university with 2 free priest specialists)
UU: Swiss Guard (Better macemen in some way)
UHV: Spread Roman Catholicism to 50%, X gold in X, Rome the most cultured city in 1800.
Republic of Venetia (800 AD)
UP: The power of Trade: 1 extra trade route in each city
UB: Venetian Arsenal (Drydock that comes with Guilds)
UU: Venetian Bireme (trireme with extra move and strength)
UHV: Control Northern Italy, Dalmatia, Greece and the Aegean by 1600 AD, have access to X different happiness resources by 1400 AD, have X gold by 1700 AD
Republic of Genoa (1000 AD)
UP: The power of Bargaining: Trade routes can go through enemy territory.
UB: Merchant House (Cheaper Bank that comes with Guilds)
UU: Genoan Galley (Galley with extra strength that can travel can travel rival territory
UHV: Control Northern Italy, Corsica, Sardinia, and Crimea by 1600 AD, have access to X different happiness resources by 1400 AD, have X gold by 1700 AD


Man. That's a fantastic list. If we're doing monastic orders in place of corporations, what do you think of replacing 'build x cathedrals' with 'found teutonic knights in gdansk' for germany?

I wonder if we should go with making the papal states unplayable. The UHV goals and UU are playable (that UB may be too powerful, although they probably won't be able to build many of them) - but that'll be a weird one to play.

What did you think of the Bulgaria idea proposed earlier?

For the Kievan Rus - what about making each grain resource produce an extra food? Same basic principle, but less powerful - still enough to generate a few extra specialists. If one of the goals is survival, are we planning on having the Mongols show up in some way? You've transfered Mongol powers to the Magyars, which seems workable (as I don't know what they'd do as Hungary to differentiate themselves) - should we alter a Hungarian UHV goal to get them to go for the Kiev region?

We may want to de-emphasize some of the naval powers for those civs outside of the Mediterranean - the Portuguese UU and the British, Spanish, and Portuguese UP's aren't going to be very useful on the current map. For the cottage industry thing - is it just for cottages, rather than hamlets, villages, and towns? If so, that would be a neat power, providing a small boost in production for a limited number of turns. If that's the case, I approve wholeheartedly - if it's the whole chain from cottage to town, that's probably a bit too powerful.

I'm fine with leaving Sicily independent. The Norman experiment would be interesting, but seems like it would be difficult to code. I'd rather use the slot on a civ like Bulgaria or Sweden.

And 6 catholic cathedrals would be many or did you think of the reformation?


I was thinking of any type of cathedral, and 6 probably is a bit much.

Man. That's a fantastic list. If we're doing monastic orders in place of corporations, what do you think of replacing 'build x cathedrals' with 'found teutonic knights in gdansk' for germany?


Possibly could work. What are the proposed benefits of monastic orders?


I wonder if we should go with making the papal states unplayable. The UHV goals and UU are playable (that UB may be too powerful, although they probably won't be able to build many of them) - but that'll be a weird one to play.


It'd be a fun OCC if it was playable, and rather different game style from most of the other nations ;).


For the Kievan Rus - what about making each grain resource produce an extra food? Same basic principle, but less powerful - still enough to generate a few extra specialists. If one of the goals is survival, are we planning on having the Mongols show up in some way? You've transfered Mongol powers to the Magyars, which seems workable (as I don't know what they'd do as Hungary to differentiate themselves) - should we alter a Hungarian UHV goal to get them to go for the Kiev region?


I assumed the mongols were going to show up as a massive barbarian spawn at least, but also having the powerful nations Moscovy, P-L, Hungary, Austria, and Sweden all have territorial preferences to Kiev's lands should do the trick also ;). As regards the Magyars, the UHV is basically what they did - raid (those razed cities should be in germany and italy if they want to stay historical ;)), then settle down (and the full crown lands are quite large - its Croatia, Serbia, slovakia and most of Romania) and try to play power politics. I like the Kiev UP idea.


We may want to de-emphasize some of the naval powers for those civs outside of the Mediterranean - the Portuguese UU and the British, Spanish, and Portuguese UP's aren't going to be very useful on the current map. For the cottage industry thing - is it just for cottages, rather than hamlets, villages, and towns? If so, that would be a neat power, providing a small boost in production for a limited number of turns. If that's the case, I approve wholeheartedly - if it's the whole chain from cottage to town, that's probably a bit too powerful.


I agree (hence proposing different UPs), though Cottages and Hamlets would probably be better than a 10 turn boost.


I'm fine with leaving Sicily independent. The Norman experiment would be interesting, but seems like it would be difficult to code. I'd rather use the slot on a civ like Bulgaria or Sweden.

Ah, but which would get in?

Sweden
Kingdom of Sweden (1500, we should have at least some late spawning civs) ->Swedish Empire (1700)->Sweden-Norway (Cities held).
UP: The power of Stormaktstiden (50% Less Unit Maintence, as Imperial sweden did so much with so little).
UB: Swedish toll-house (Castle that gives an extra Trade route if water is in the city radius (like the Dike))
UU: Landsfänika (10% Cheaper Musketman with Drill 2)
UHV: Control Norway and every tile adjacent to the Baltic east of Malmo in 1700, Spread Protestantism/Lutherism to 15%, Defeat 150 units.

OR

Bulgaria
Old Great Bulgaria (630) -> Bulgarian Empire (800) -> Kingdom of Bulgaria (1840)
UP: The power of the Khan: No unrest in conquered cities.
UB: A stable that give happiness perhaps?
UU: Bulgar Horseman (Mounted Archer with bonus verses mounted units)
UHV: Control The Balkans, Greece and Thrace in 1000, Make the Eastern Roman Empire and 2 other nations vassals, build 2 Orthodox Cathedrals before 1100.

I'd of course like Sweden in, but maybe the UP name could be changed to Power of Indelningsverket. It was a system where normal people had to maintain an army by feeding and giving shelter to the soldiers. Local farms and houses maintained the soldiers health in group of 2-4 houses. The effect is correct already.

And for the UU may I suggest Hakkapeliittas(replaces maybe Curaissier(spelling?)). They were Finnish cavalry who fought in the 30 years war. Their bonus could be some bonus that makes attacks more effective.

The celts or ireland should be included. Possible victory condition to control ireland? or have no foreign control in ireland

I posted a UP list on the main thread, page 9 I belive. Ill try and think up more of them. i have a great idea for kevian rus that needs a little more work.

Possibly could work. What are the proposed benefits of monastic orders?


(reviews notes) The operative idea was to replace corporations with monastic and military orders - the Templars, Hospitallers, Teutonic Knights; and any four of the Benedictines, Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, and Cistercians.

proposed ideas for the military orders: (all competing with each other)
-Templars: barracks and stables give +15% gold (to represent the Templar's role in banking
-Hospitalers: free medic 1 promotion for all units built in the city, units heal an additional 10%/turn in cities w/Hospitalers
-Teutonic Order: free shock promotion for all mounted units, +1 xp from barracks or stables?

for monastic orders: nobody has currently proposed anything beyond their inclusion. I'd argue that all should give a science bonus, due to the importance of monasteries as institutions of higher learning in Medieval Europe, and they might then be specialized to give other bonuses as well - Jesuits give an espionage bonus, Franciscans a happiness bonus, Dominicans a gold% bonus, etc. I'd like other people's ideas on this.


Ah, but which would get in?

Sweden
Kingdom of Sweden (1500, we should have at least some late spawning civs) ->Swedish Empire (1700)->Sweden-Norway (Cities held).
UP: The power of Stormaktstiden (50% Less Unit Maintence, as Imperial sweden did so much with so little).
UB: Swedish toll-house (Castle that gives an extra Trade route if water is in the city radius (like the Dike))
UU: Landsfänika (10% Cheaper Musketman with Drill 2)
UHV: Control Norway and every tile adjacent to the Baltic east of Malmo in 1700, Spread Protestantism/Lutherism to 15%, Defeat 150 units.

OR

Bulgaria
Old Great Bulgaria (630) -> Bulgarian Empire (800) -> Kingdom of Bulgaria (1840)
UP: The power of the Khan: No unrest in conquered cities.
UB: A stable that give happiness perhaps?
UU: Bulgar Horseman (Mounted Archer with bonus verses mounted units)
UHV: Control The Balkans, Greece and Thrace in 1000, Make the Eastern Roman Empire and 2 other nations vassals, build 2 Orthodox Cathedrals before 1100.


Can we add both and drop Switzerland? :D

Can we add both and drop Switzerland? :D

Sounds good.

Genoa was a republic until 1797, but was basically a vassal from 1394 onwards.

A vassal still got a mechanic to be a civ ingame and makes more sense as one than being a province, though.

That being said, I find it a little disconcerting that the one poster who commented on modders not taking other suggestions and using only their ideas is the only one who posted a counterpoint to my suggestions. It seems your point was proven, and the list was finalized as soon as it was put up on this post, no matter what other posters may have suggested.

?
I didn't speak against the inclusion of Bulgaria, I spoke against the exclusion of Genoa in favor of Bulgaria. Because in fact, you proposed to include Bulgaria and Moravia ( :confused: ) instead of "for example" Genoa and Sicily. Like I already said it's perfectly fine to propose civs as long as you give reasons that aren't "it was more important than Civ X", and that are even incorrect claims, or not backed up by some more informations. If you read the main thread about the mod you will see in one post (#125) I wrote to not underestimate the importance of eastern europe.

[Papal States]


It'd be a fun OCC if it was playable, and rather different game style from most of the other nations ;).



I think it would be better to make them unplayable for 3 reasons:
1) Having some interesting game mechanic that most civs have to deal with and that would make the mod more interesting overall.
2) the UHV and gameplay in general would be inevitably boring, unless you go on a conquest path, quite unhistorical.
3) opens up a slot for other civs (since we're apparently short of).

[Genoa / Venice]

I'd rather have the first control Tuscany and the second North Italy than both North Italy.

[Independent Sicily]

Would inevitably make someone unhistorically too strong in the mediterranean (its strategical importance is huge on the map) once they conquer it. Unless Spain has big advantages in conquering it ?

[Netherlands and Burgundy]

I don't know what is Netherland's spawn date in 1050 based on (could someone explain ?), it should be the end of XVI century AFAIK... until that date it should be Burgundy's goal to control it (I'd include a bit more than one coastal tile in the UHV, in fact). If France succeeds in its UHV goal to control Bourgogne, the spawn of Netherlands will most likely make Burgundy collapse, quite historical :) Making Netherlands spawn before, on the other hand, would probably make France's goal a bit too easy ?

kicking around some ideas on the current civ list. I'm also coming to think Sweden is fractionally better deserving of a slot than Sicily :mischief: due to greater impact in the time period the Mod is planning to cover (since sicily is under the control of so many different states, it would be better as an independent).


Current Civ List:
Western Europe (4)
Kingdom of Neustria (500 AD) -> West Francia (840 AD) -> France (990 AD)
UP: The power of the Seigneur (Farms give +2 gold till discovery of nationalism)
UB: Salon
UU: Musketeer
UHV: Unite historical France/France to the Rhine, Largest population in 1600, Paris the most cultured city in 1800
England (500 AD) -> Great Britain (Cities held)
UP: Either keep the current UP or The Power of Cottage Industry (Cottages give +1 Hammer)
UB: Stock Exchange
UU: Redcoat
UHV: Build the HEIC and 2 other colonial wonders, first to industrial age, highest GDP and Production in 1820.
Netherlands (1050 AD)
UP: The Power of the Polders (can build improvements on marshes as of they were grass lands)
UB: Dike (maybe move this and levees to engineering?)
UU: East Indiaman/Swiss Pikeman
UHV: Never lose a city, first to discover economics, corporation and constitution, build the VOC and 1 other colonial wonder.
Burgundy (500 AD) (Is this meant to be more the kingdom or Duchy?)
UP: The power of Dynastic alliance (similar but different to the Hapsburg one): vassals, military alliances, etc grant extra stability.
UB: Burgundian Monastery (more expensive christian monastery gives and extra 10% sci and +1 happy from wine and wheat, Richard the Justiciar (really the first Burgundian Duke) often gave refuge to persecuted monks – best I could think of, also could be said to represent later Trappist monks in Belgium ;))
UU: Some sort of heavier knight.
UHV: Control land from the North Sea to the Med (i.e having control of a tile at every longitude between X and Y) by 1400, Make France and the Netherlands vassals (or destroy them) by 1500, control X wine resources by 1300.


Iberian Peninsula (3)
Kingdom of Asturias (720 AD) -> Leon (920 AD) -> Crown of Castile (1230 AD)
-> Empire of Spain (1520 AD)
UP: The power of the Conquista (x3 money on city conquest, removal of non-State religions)
UB: Citadel
UU: Conquistador
UHV: Unite Spain by 1450, Conquer/vassalise Portugal, Italy and North Africa by 1650, Spread Roman Catholic Christianity to 50%/Build Mexican and Incan Conquests
Portugal (1100 AD)
UP: The power of Indian Trade (Spices, Sugar, Silks, other colonial resources, all give +50% Trade route income in the Portuguese capital).
UB: Feitoria
UU: Carrack
UHV: Build 3 Colonial Wonders before 1600, have X gold in 1600, don’t lose a city before 1700
Al-Andalus (700 AD)
UP: The power of the (find Arabic word for farm): Can build farms without irrigation
UB: Madrassah (different from normal one, this one is an early and cheaper university that comes with Theology)
UU: Berber Cavalry (no movement costs on plains or deserts hills? Greater Withdrawal chance?)
UHV: Be the most scientifically advanced in 1000, Córdoba number one city in size and culture in 1000, never lose a city before 1400.

North & Central Europe (5)
Norse (500 AD) -> Union of Kalmar (1350) -> Denmark-Norway (1530).
UP: The power of Raid (same as the RFC one).
UB: Berserker
UU: Trading Post
UHV: Have X gold by 1500, conquer Britain by 1000, sink X ships
Kingdom of Austrasia (500 AD) -> East Francia (840 AD) -> Kingdom of Germany
(920 AD) -> Germanic States (1260 AD)
UP: The Power of the Marches (other cultures assimilate to the germans faster?)
UB: Rathaus
UU: Landsknecht
UHV: control X% of the map by 1000 (Otto the Great’s lands), have 6 cities east of the Vistula by 1400, build 6 cathedrals by 1600.
Lechia (970 AD) -> Poland (???) -> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1570 AD)
UP: The Power of Golden Liberty: Reduced distance corruption.
UB: Folwark (‘Farmhouse before the city’) Grocer which gives 10% extra gold and +1 health from wheat and corn.
UU: Hussar (Cavalry with greater withdrawal chance).
UHV: Largest land area and population in 1600, first to discover Constitution and Liberalism, No Polish-Lithuanian population under foreign control in 1800
Austria/House of Habsburg (1160 AD or 1280 AD)
UP: The power of inheritance (Independent cities much more likely to flip to Austria)
UB: The Schloss (castle in German, better name probably needed): Castle with an extra +5 culture.
UU: Landesschützen (Musketmen with free guerilla promotions)
UHV: Become Holy Roman Empire, Control Hungary, Bohemia, Southern Germany and northern Italy by 1620, Vienna as the most cultured city in 1800.
Old Swiss Confederacy (1290 AD) -> Switzerland (1650 AD?)
UP: Power of the Cantons: starts with Representation and Nationhood enabled.
UB: Landsgemeinden: Courthouse that gives +2 XP to melee and gunpowder units (‘provincal assembly’ where the canton meets and votes, in the olden days a Swiss male only needed to show his ceremonial sword or bayonet (hence the xp boost, representing Swiss militia service) to enter).
UU: Swiss Pikemen (Pikeman with Shock and Drill 2)
UHV: Conquer 6 cities before 1500, Never lose a city before 1800, have X gold in 1800

Eastern Europe (6)
Eastern Roman Empire (500 AD)
UP: I liked Ajidica’s ‘The Power of the Theodesian Walls’ give +100% defense to Constantinople that cannot be bombarded before gunpowder.
UB: Hippodrome
UU: Cataphract
UHV: Control Anatolia, The Balkans and Italy in 700 AD, Control Anatolia, The Balkans and Italy in 1200 AD, have X gold in 1200 AD
Kievan Rus (860 AD) -> Principality of Chernigov (1080 AD) -> Zaporozhian
Host? (1650 AD) -> Russian Empire (By Cities Held)
UP: The power of the Breadbasket: irrigated Farms give +1 Food (probably too powerful)
UB: Zernoskhovysche (Ukrainian for Granary): Replaces Granary, gives +1 trade route to show Ukrainian food exports.
UU: Cossack
UHV: Largest land area in 1000, all cities over size 4 have a monastery, aqueduct and courthouse in 1100, Survive to 1800
Vladimir-Suzdal (1090 AD) -> Grand Duchy of Moscow (1320 AD) -> Tsardom of
Russia (1547 AD) -> Russian Empire (By cities held)
UP: The power of general winter (same as RFC)
UB: ??
UU: Dvoryanin (a knight UU of some type ;))
UHV: Conquer Russia by 1600, Conquer the Russian empire (inc. Poland, Finland, Ukraine and the Causcuas) by 1850, Spread Orthodox Christianity to x%.
Magyars (900 AD) -> Kingdom of Hungary (1000 AD)
UP: Power of migration: Mounted units built with food prior to Theology.
UB: Magyar Stable (rip of the Mongolian Ger)
UU: Ungri Horsemen (rip of the Keshik)
UHV: Raze 6 cities by 1100, Control all the Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen in 1200, have 2 vassals by 1400
Ottoman Empire (1300 AD)
UP: Assimilation
UB: Hammam
UU: Janissary
UHV: All the ones from RFC work fine.
Umayyad Caliphate (660 AD) -> Abbasid Caliphate (750 AD) -> Fatimid
Caliphate (970 AD) -> Ayyubid Dynasty (1170 AD) -> Mamluk Sultanate (
1250 AD)
UP: Religion
UB: ‘Arab Courthouse’ gives extra gold depending on how much of the city is non-arab and the city size. Shows the tax on non-arabs and one of the drivign forces for expansion.
UU: Camel Archer
UHV: Spread Islam to 30%, Conquer North Africa, Spain and Italy by 1100 AD, Control 3 holy shrine cities in 1300 AD.

Italy (3)
Papal States (500 AD)
UP: The power of Papal Authority: +3 Relation with Roman Catholic States, +25 War weariness for Roman Catholics at war with the Pope.
UB: Seminary (university with 2 free priest specialists)
UU: Swiss Guard (Better macemen in some way)
UHV: Spread Roman Catholicism to 50%, X gold in X, Rome the most cultured city in 1800.
Republic of Venetia (800 AD)
UP: The power of Trade: 1 extra trade route in each city
UB: Venetian Arsenal (Drydock that comes with Guilds)
UU: Venetian Bireme (trireme with extra move and strength)
UHV: Control Northern Italy, Dalmatia, Greece and the Aegean by 1600 AD, have access to X different happiness resources by 1400 AD, have X gold by 1700 AD
Republic of Genoa (1000 AD)
UP: The power of Bargaining: Trade routes can go through enemy territory.
UB: Merchant House (Cheaper Bank that comes with Guilds)
UU: Genoan Galley (Galley with extra strength that can travel can travel rival territory
UHV: Control Northern Italy, Corsica, Sardinia, and Crimea by 1600 AD, have access to X different happiness resources by 1400 AD, have X gold by 1700 AD


Still hoping you'll respond to my ideas on Iberia (post 55) Al Andalus and
the Caliphate of Cordoba are FAR more important than the Christian kingdoms up to about 1100. And Aragon should be included too, just as important as Castille. And Valencia as an independent. Don't you agree?;)

Still hoping you'll respond to my ideas on Iberia (post 55) Al Andalus and
the Caliphate of Cordoba are FAR more important than the Christian kingdoms up to about 1100. And Aragon should be included too, just as important as Castille. And Valencia as an independent. Don't you agree?;)

Al Andalus is on the list and always has been, plus I proposed science and culture related UUs, literally exactly what you mentioned in the comments :confused:.

Aragons apogee was quite shor