I've always thought this would be an interesting project, and I'd like to see how many other people would like to see this materialize. I understand, from looking at RFC:Europe that it has been a tremendous amount of work. I imagine RFC:A would be a much smaller scale than RFC:E, and thus require less work. However, there would still need to be an interest and a couple of people who would be interested in and capable of modding.

I've always thought RFC would work well in a classical setting. I've always enjoyed playing as Greece, Rome, Carthage, and Egypt, and I thought it would be sweet to have a scenario based on the ancient world. Thus, here are my proposed features/things that would need to be done:


A timeline of 3000BC-476AD
A new tech tree
A map featuring the Med, North Africa, and the Middle East, stretching to present day Iran.
Ability to play as Civs such as Athens, Sparta, Macedon, Rome, Carthage, Phoenicia, Persia, Egypt, Babylon, the Hittites, Assyria, and the Celts. Possibly as Israel or the Levant, but that might be better off as a non-playable civ.
New Unique units for some of the Civs.
Stability, Plagues, and all the normal features of RFC
New graphics and UHVs


Concerning the workload:

There are less civs than RFCE(which I'm using as a guide line since it is the only other community scenario). I have proposed 12 playable civs, which means less UHVs, less things to balance, and less things to code.
There is no need to add complex things like the Crusades and the Papacy, as such things simply did not exist at the time of the mod.
Several of the proposed civs already have a unique unit: Rome, Carthage, Persia, Egypt, Bablyon, and the Celts. Giving Sparta the Phalanx (or the same unit with a better name), that leaves 5 civs to add unique units for.
The map would be about the same size of RFC:E. I know enough about Civ 4 to make most of the map myself, as long as I have feedback on my work.


This thread is merely to gauge the reception of my idea. Discussion of mechanics, units, and civs will have separate threads if the project is indeed launched. Would there be enough interest to warrant the creation of such a project? Who would like to play such a scenario, and who would be able to help build it?

I'd play it, if there were cool features other than UHVs and UPs, tho I can't think of any other than stuff having to do with religions.
(On the topic of religions please make Israel\Judea playable so Judaism will finally have importance in a historically accurate setting :))
Also maybe add Huns?

I actually like the idea. I personally love the Ancient world even better than the medieval one. A bad news is that I for one do not have the physical capabilities to code two mods at the same time.

So far RFC Europe has been somewhat successful largely due to the contributions of 5 - 6 people. st Lucifer (the map is mostly his), sedna17 (for XML and some Python, which means the Tech Tree, Units, Buildings, Wonders, Graphics and so on), Jessiecat (for the tremendous historical knowledge helping create something that actually makes sense)
micbic (for synchronizing all the somewhat random city name maps) and 3Miro (me) (for all of the DLL changed and some python). I do not mean to belittle or unappreciate all the people that contributed city name maps and graphics and feedback.

A good news is that my goal trough out the entire process has been to make the .dll file as flexible as possible. Some time ago we (mostly senda and I) agreed to make it C++ driven but python controlled. Some of the maps and balancing mechanics of the game were initially hard-coded. While this works very efficiently for creating RFC, it makes modmoding hard. If you use the RFCEurope .dll file you will be able to do almost everything (hopefully everything) just in XML and python. This will cut the labor significantly.

In some sense working with C++ requires more "skills" then Python and XML. C++ is less intuitive and one needs some background in it. XML and Python are easier to read, actually all that you need is good text editor (I recommend TextPad for Windows, look it up on Google).

A bad news is that while RFC:A may be able to go without me, you still need people like sedna and jesiecat and st. Lucifer and micbic and others.

The best advice that I can give is: since you proposed it, start with what you can do, do the map and see if you will find people to help you with the rest. (for all that my advice is worth)

Never mind.

3Miro- Would both project be able to share resources then? That would be a godsend :) Are there any other active modders? Viashing comes to mind; i know he was working on RFC Epic

Jet- I'm not sure what TAM means, but if it means The Ancient Map, then of course. I'd like to have a map made, then add civs, then get them to spawn in at the right times before adding everything else in. It's always easier to keep it to lots of simple steps.

BurnEmDown- The Huns would be open for discussion, but it's difficult since as far as I can tell no one is really sure where they're from exactly and what their capital would be. As far as other features, I want to keep it simple for now, perhaps more can be done with random events and a lot more "quests".

3Miro- Would both project be able to share resources then? That would be a godsend :) Are there any other active modders? Viashing comes to mind; i know he was working on RFC Epic

Jet- I'm not sure what TAM means, but if it means The Ancient Map, then of course. I'd like to have a map made, then add civs, then get them to spawn in at the right times before adding everything else in. It's always easier to keep it to lots of simple steps.

BurnEmDown- The Huns would be open for discussion, but it's difficult since as far as I can tell no one is really sure where they're from exactly and what their capital would be. As far as other features, I want to keep it simple for now, perhaps more can be done with random events and a lot more "quests".

If you are to make the map, make it the right size but don't bother to add civs initially. The initial civs all had to be removed before I could get RFCE work (the very first test version). Give maybe a couple.

No, I (in the post I deleted, but too late :)) meant The Ancient Mediterranean mod.

I have been working on a mod/scenario with similar ideas. Basically it will be a revamped Greek World with RFC stuff and 1 new feature: non-random events.

This is what I have so far:

- Tiny map, cut out of RFC (link for details and download) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=10189)
- Some historic events with choices (link for screenshots (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7759287&postcount=36))
- Dynamic City Names (same as in RFC, Celts still need to be added)
- Timeline 600 BC - 300 AD (Classical Antiquity)

I'll keep working on this, but if anyone else would get RFC:Antiquity going, I would be interested.

I think the map is a bit too small for having Athens, Sparta, and Macedon, considering Athens and Sparta are two tiles away from each other and Macedon is still really close.
Assyria, Babylon, and the Hittites would be really cramped, too.

I'd say that the map doesn't need to be anywhere near as large as RFC:E, especially with much fewer civs.

Second, why 476AD? I mean, I know why historically, but from a gameplay standpoint, is that when a scenario based on the ancient middle east SHOULD end? 600AD or so makes a bit more sense to me, or rather right before the Arabs took over the entire map. Or even 1450, to get the Turks and Mongols (and the Crusaders could spawn as barbarians. heh) Not that I think these are inherently better, but I think that focusing on the gameplay questions inherent would help focus the mod.

I'd also say that Parthia should be a playable civ, and you may need two Persias - Sassanid and Achaemanids/Medes.

Or, if you focused on simply the ancient Middle East (pre-Roman), you could have a much smaller map, faster gameplay, and fewer hard questions.

EDIT: Sumeria!

I would LOVE that! (I wouldn't be able to help much though. Just give support on the sidelines. I would research and throw out ideas, however. Just name it Zach's and Fall of Civilization:joke:) Although it should stretch to the Indus River, so the Alexandrian conquests could have the full effect.
Ever since I went over the Middle East in World History10, I fantasized about a RFC middle east, with the main civs as
-The Sumerians
-The Babylonians
-The Assyrians
-The Phoenicians
-The Hittites
-The Hebrews

I have thought about this for a long time, I HAVE to get this out.

-It would start around the Indo-European migrations. The main groups I have in mind are the Aryans, Iranians, and Anitolians. They would each have a settler and an archer traveling to their historical location, only able to found their first city on only one, historical plot. It'll be up to the action of the starting civs to allow the migration of such people, creating many diverse situations over the coarse of this theoretical mod. So there could be (if literally possible to code) many diverse combination of civs throughout the game. So say if the Iranians get caught before making their first settlement, Persia will never be formed, instead an independent.

-One technology would give a new feature: colonies. It would be 75% construction of settler, but no food detour. A colony would also have 50% maintenance cost. It would look like a fort, but it allows the plot the fort is founded on, plus one plot in any desired, adjacent location. (This would make it possible to snag a resource.) It would have a name, and a maximum of 4 population, each population representing 1 level.
-1. The starting level, no special features
-2. Ability to build a worker (since there would only be one plot, workers take long to load)
-3. Ability to build one archer (same as worker)
-4. Well, there really wouldn't be a four. Instead of four, the colony would become a city if desired.
-This would be a GREAT feature IMO, but hard one. The reason I really want it is because of the importance of Greek/Phoenician colonization of the Mediterranean.

-Civilizations like Carthage that were historically founded by a colony could only became a civilization in the game if it started as a colony, otherwise the city of Carthage would just pop up as an independent.
*NOTE* 1. The AI would be scripted to go after such plots, thus giving the player incentive motivation to either go after it if they would like to see/switch to Carthage, or not go after it for more diverse games.
*Note* 2. Carthage will ALWAYS spawn if someone would like to auto chooses to auto play as them.

So diversity between games is my main theme.
I would love to see these ideas, so just tell me if they are plausible/likable.:D

EDIT: You should put this site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_colonies#Greek_colonies_.28apoikiai.29) in the OP. It is one of my favorite wiki articles and has a great map of Greek and Phoenician colonies, as well as independent cities. Only problem is that it is only in German, but you get distinguish certain cities.

It is sure a good idea. I am for one will be quite pleased to have such mod to play and I think many others would be interested as well. Based on what 3Miro said the task should be much easier that it was for starting RFCE. I remember that the early trial of working on RFCE was mainly abandoned because of all the hardcoded data in the DLL code. I did thought of making the DLL as neutral as it can be so all the work would be done in XML and python. The task was too time consuming for me to tackle. I am both glad and impressed that 3Miro has actually done that :goodjob:

I haven't read the post where Jet mentioned TAM but anyway you should look it up. TAM covers the same time period and you can find some helpful resources in it. The tech tree, units, buildings and civs' UUs all these can provide you with ideas you will need.

Fierabras- I plan on making a much larger map, however, when the time comes can I enlist your help with your random/non-random events. I like the idea of that.

As for the timeline, it wouldn't make sense for a mod based on ancient history to include the Turks and Mongols. Classical Antiquity ends somewhere in the ballpark of 476 AD (the last Roman Emperor). Rome was also the sole super power in the area; it's fall is a convenient and logical place to end the scenario.

Map-wise, I'd like the size of Greece and Italy for instance to be a little bit larger than it is in RFCE. I imagine it like this: http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/3854/romanempirezh0.th.jpg (http://img119.imageshack.us/my.php?image=romanempirezh0.jpg)

By cropping out land which would be mostly empty, we can make the map smaller while still having larger landmasses.

3000 B.C till 476 A.D sounds good, it connects with RFC:E, ending where RFC:E starts.
Who knows maybe after this mod is done another mod will be born called RFC:Industrial Age 1800-1918 and after that RFC: Modern World in the Making 1919-1992 (fall of USSR if I'm not mistaken?)

I'd be interested in playing such a mod. I don't have time right now to create a map from scratch for it, but i'd be willing to give it a shot in June. If you can wait that long, great; if you can't, I could look at modifying an existing map - but I'm not going to be able to put much time into things until April at the earliest.

Still, it's a good proposal.

As for the timeline, it wouldn't make sense for a mod based on ancient history to include the Turks and Mongols. Classical Antiquity ends somewhere in the ballpark of 476 AD (the last Roman Emperor). Rome was also the sole super power in the area; it's fall is a convenient and logical place to end the scenario.



While it may make sense from a historical standpoint, it's odd from a gameplay standpoint, for several reasons. First of all, the Roman Empire didn't fall in 476 CE. The Western Roman Empire did. Second, going that far forward leads to a situation where, if the game progresses historically, Rome is the sole superpower for hundreds of turns, pretty much after 50 BCE. Who are they competing against? Carthage and the Celts are conquered, Eqypt and Greece vassalized, everyone else long gone. Only the Parthians/Sassanids would be even so much as an autonomous regional power. If, theoretically, Rome would have been the historical "winner" of such a scenario, then they would have "won" long before their collapse.

An alternate endpoint would be 300 BCE, and Alexander's conquests. That would allow for significantly smaller map, and a more focused "antiquity."

Ahhh (not scared, more of a wise ahh:old:)... but that's why they call it Rhye's and Fall (well Rhye after the creator, but anyways... lol). With it starting so early, who says Rome has to ALWAYS be the superpower. What about Etrusca, Phoenicia, Greece, even the mighty Carthaginians (who would like to see that?!?? I mean that has got to be cool.) We should play until a time where the last civ spawned has enough playing time. I honestly would love to see an Etruscan superpower, but that is besides the point.
But even in Rome's glory years, they still had Persia (don't know the civ's real name. I just know it's Iranian based) to the east.

Well hopefully I sounded wiser than I felt. Thank god for parenthesis! :D

Indeed. Playing as a non-Roman civ, it is unlikely that the AI Rome will conquer everything that the historical Rome did. If Rome does manage that feat, it's stability might be terrible and result in Carthage or Egypt respawning.

Another interesting idea would be to make one of the barbarians playable, say the Goths. They could even have a a UHV to sack Rome.

Ostrogoths: Control Illyria and Italy by 476 AD?

Yeah, my guess is that AI Rome will have a difficulty getting into Gaul, knowing how unaggressive the AI is. They will be challenged enough as it is. Hell, even in Vanilla RFC I've had games in which Rome doesn't conquer all of the Celtic territory. Also, keep in mind, it was pointed out that Rome would be suffering stability problems due to occupying so many spawns. It would be a challenge for the player to keep out the barbarians and to prevent their empire from crumbling.

UP: No negative stability from controlling other civs' core areas? Either that or Vassalize.
Or wait, since the mod will have so few civs compared to other mods, maybe multiple UUs, UBs and UPs could be assign to each civ!

kravixon, TAM has exactly that map you show in your screenshot. You can actually pick from the small, standard, or huge version. There is also a standard size map of the middle east. TAM does use a lot of modded resources on those maps, so you have to remove/replace those first for a clean version that you could test with BTS vanilla.

Hmm.

The "Standard" size map from TAM (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=206) is a little bit smaller than we'd need for the modmod, and doesn't include Iran.
The "Huge", however, is massive. It even includes Arabia, Nubia, and to the borders of India. It's actually a really well made and beautiful map. Crete is even large enough to warrant the addition of the Minoans, and there is enough room for Sicily to actually be disconnected from Italy. Greece is rather poorly done and really small, so that would have to be redone, as would Egypt. Other than that, though, there is a huge, well made map that is already made that contains all the things that would be needed in the scenario. And modifying an existing map would save a lot of trouble.

My only problem with it is that it has large areas, such as the top of the Sahara and North of the Black Sea which will be unpopulated for our purposes, but I'm not sure if that will actually slow down the game or not.

Any thoughts?

Unless you go with a tilted map that contains the Mediterranean and Arabia, you will always end up with a big Sahara and a big Europe. The Huge TAM map will probably hurt most computers in the endgame.

Absolutely LOVE the idea. I've been waiting for something like that since I first knew of RFC.

There are many problems though. Any Antiquity mod is doomed for me if it can get past 1 AD without the romans and persians ruling most of the map. In regular RFC for example, ancient civilizations are SUPPOSED to get overrun by the later ones, and Europeans are most of the times far ahead in techs and score.

Also, in RFC big empires occupying another civ's core areas are very short-lived, and it should not be the case here.

I think it would be interesting for the map to include part of India and Central Asia (at least to the extent of the limits of classic Persia and Alexander's Empire), restrict the Sahara and Eastern Europe to a mininum, even leaving out most of Brittania.

Another possibility is to make a map with just the Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East and Persia and let it run for the period 3000 - 300 BC...

Many people have talked about a classical era based RFC previously and I personally think it would be amazing.

Though it's not absolutely necessary, I think it would be nice to have at least some part of India represented in the game considering how important the trade route was for many Near East economies as well as being historically relevant to conquerers such as Alexander.

But with or without India it would be truly fascinating. While not a modder myself would be willing to help research wise anyway I could.

Also 'vassals' and defensive pacts must come in much earlier than in regular RFC (obviously) it's shame that there are such few diplomatic features in the ancient era in regular CIV as the great classical powers like Rome and Persia frequently had client states or vassals, allies, diplomatic agreements and what not.

Places that were never fully conquered in the classical era such as Germany and Scotland should be uber-barb land; with incredibly fierce warriors becoming more and more aggressive as time goes on if their power remains checked....

I agree with barbs being tougher in Germania. Perhaps they should recieve free woodsman promotions? (Teutoberg Wald, anybody?)

So is this in progress or what?

I guess so, but don't expect any real progress for a little bit. I just had my audition for my college's school of music so I have a lot more free time. I'll probably start on the map in a day or so.

OK, just telling as I'm willing to help. No experience with XML or Python though, but with C++ or anything else.

I'd recommend to you a slightly altered map. As to now, most of Sahara and Russian mainland would be just useless. So you could 'turn' the map a little bit. Like this:

(there was actually a map like this used in Civ2)

I would love to see this happen.
I am a total noob when it comes to moding, but I am offering your help if you need any with the developement of concepts and ideas for this mod (U. Victory conditions, U. units, U. structures... features)

kravixon, are you still working on this?

I was having an idea.

UP- Pax Romana: while at peace, Rome has no stability penalty for number of cities and controlling another civ's core areas.

I'm on spring break, so I don't have my computer with me, but so far I haven't really gotten anything done. I invested a few hours working on bmp mapping, which I just couldn't get to work right.

After RFCEurope is released as a Beta, some of the people working on it had expressed interest on helping with this. Until that point comes or we can find a mapper, the project won't begin to materialize. I've started a map, similar to Ambassador's slanted one, but it's manually edited and I don't really have much done on it at all.

Until more help can be found or I at least come out with a really rough map, all that can be really done is come up with civs, powers, unique units, a tech tree, wonders, and maybe a list of events to happen (like maybe the Olympics during the Classical age).

Also, my ideas for civs and their unique units. We could make two unique units for each civ, but I don't know enough about each civilization to come up with a second one for each one.

Athens= Some kind of Trireme, the current Phalanx replacing spearmen
Sparta= Spartan Hoplites (stronger phalanx, replacing axemen), current Phalanxes replacing spears
Macedon= Companion Cavalry, Piked Phalanx (The varietas D. mod's greek pikemen come to mind)
Rome= Praetorians, some kind of earlier legionary
Carthage= Numidian Cav, War elephants
Phoenicia= Some kind of Galley, some kind of Trireme
Persia= Immortals, War Elephants
Egypt= War Chariot, no idea
Bablyon= Their current bowmen, the Sumerian vultures
Hittites= Bronze chariots, no idea
Assyria= I don't know enough about them
Celts/Gauls= either woad raiders or some sort of Gallic warrior, or both

Any Israel/Judea for that list?

Athens AND Sparta? These civs will either have to colonize or play an OCC.

If there is going to be Judea, then one UU is kinda written into it: The Maccabi.

Also, my ideas for civs and their unique units. We could make two unique units for each civ, but I don't know enough about each civilization to come up with a second one for each one.

Athens= Some kind of Trireme, the current Phalanx replacing spearmen
Sparta= Spartan Hoplites (stronger phalanx, replacing axemen), current Phalanxes replacing spears
Macedon= Companion Cavalry, Piked Phalanx (The varietas D. mod's greek pikemen come to mind)
Rome= Praetorians, some kind of earlier legionary
Carthage= Numidian Cav, War elephants
Phoenicia= Some kind of Galley, some kind of Trireme
Persia= Immortals, War Elephants
Egypt= War Chariot, no idea
Bablyon= Their current bowmen, the Sumerian vultures
Hittites= Bronze chariots, no idea
Assyria= I don't know enough about them
Celts/Gauls= either woad raiders or some sort of Gallic warrior, or both

Rome= How about a Legionary (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=313724)?

Phoenecia= UU both ships, probably not. A replacement for a galley-type is a must, but the 2nd could be a form of scout or settler.

Babylon= Information About military:
Military
Little is known of the Babylonian military from either the Old or New Empires, although Hammurabi’s army of the Old Empire may have made important use of chariots when these were first coming into use.The New Empire armies probably copied much from the Assyrians. This would suggest that Babylonians made extensive use of cavalry, especially mounted bowmen. Foot troops probably used iron weapons and wore iron helmets and some chain mail armor. The Babylonians and their less advanced allies, the Medes, took three heavily fortified Assyrian cities in short succession, suggesting they had mastered the Assyrian techniques for storming cities.
-http://www.angelfire.com/empire2/unkemptgoose/Babylonian.html


Hittites= Instead of bronze, it should be iron. They were know for their advances in iron.

Assyria= Form of Horse Archers/Lancer:
The Assyrians would experience fewer problems with Cavalry when they were deployed as Lancers; under Tiglath Pileser III, the Assyrian Cavalry continued to be paired of but this time each warrior holds his own lance and controls their own horse. By the 7th century B.C., mounted Assyrian warriors were well armed with a bow and a lance, armored with lamellar armor and their mounts equipped with fabric armor, providing limited yet useful protection in close combat and against missiles. Cavalry would form the core of the later Assyrian armies.
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Assyrian_Empire#Weapons
Battering Ram: Quite a lot of information could be seen here:
The Battering ram appears to be one of the best Assyrian contributions to siege warfare... They consisted of a tank-like wooden frame on four wheels. There was a small tower on top for archers to provide covering fire as the engine moved forward. When it had reached its destination, its primary weapon, a large spear, was used to batter away and chip pieces of the enemy wall. Whilst this would have been almost useless against stone walls, one must keep in mind that mud and not stone was used to build walls... Walls were strengthened with time and the Assyrians responded by building larger engines with bigger "spears". In time, they closely resembled a large and long log with a metal tip at the end. Even stone would not withstand pounding by a larger weapon. Larger engines accommodated greater numbers of archers. To protect against fire (which was used by both sides at the Siege of Lachish) the battering ram would be covered in wet skins
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_Assyrian_Empire#Weapons

-This also gives me an idea for three new buildings: Variations of walls; Mud, Wood, Stone.

Edit:
Also there needs to be Etruscan and Hebrew UUs.
BTW... This may not be appropriate to ask but nobody commented on Post #11. Can someone just say if they would/ would not like to see any of my ideas implemented. Also if they are possible or not.

I'm thinking Maccabee and Zealot for the Hebrew UU's. The only question is, what would they replace?
The Hebrews, if appearance is hardcoded, should appear in the 12th century BCE, probably in what is now lower Israel. Maybe the likelihood of the reappearance of the Hebrew nation could be heightened due to frequent conquering of the land and subsequent defeat of the capturer and a movement back to the land.

I would have to vote against hebrews being included.
I don't have anything against the jews but they havent realy played any that importmant rolle in ancient history.
Unlike Cartage, Grece, Rome or Egipt, they newer had an empire and the only time they existed as a nation was under vasalage from rome.
I think that the correct way to include them would be to make all cities with judeism in the middle east more likely to revolt and cause instability.

Judea may have not been a great empire and maybe it have much influence for the mod but it was a nation occupying a decent enough territory to include. Also I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard figuring out UU's, UB's, UP's and leaders for Judea.
Zach, I liked some of your ideas from post #11 but the part with Indo-European migrations I wouldn't really like seeing in this mod. Aside from that everything sounds cool.

But they did have an extraordinary cultural impact on the area. I guess you could relate them to Khemer in RFC, not many people thought they were important enough but they did add flavor.
But you are right, we should first see what the most important civilizations would be and the community's preference (For me, I would rather have fun and variation rather than historical accuracy and significance. So a civilization for Etruria is a must for me.) before we start making civilizations official.

Thanks BED. I didn't really think the migrations was that doable anyway, lol. But thanks for commenting. BTW, I did a little more with that world map from RFC is Dead, but it doesn't seem that the community would want that as much as we want Antiquity.

The idea sounds good. I'd help, but I'm afraid I don't have the skills or the time to be useful.

Has anyone thought up any UP's for the upcoming civs? I'm guessing Athens is going to inherit the Greek UP from RFC but what about Sparta? Giving them a military-related UP would be only appropriate, but considering they already have stronger UU's than their neighbors, would it lead to the Spartans overrunning the lesser-endowed Athens in a swift moment?

Also to the person making a comment on Sparta and Athens having to colonize... they did just that historically. ;) No unified kingdom in Greece until later times.

Lots of unit/history stuff[/SPOILER]

Excellent post ZachScape! I had forgotten that the Hittites used iron, and truly know little to nothing about Babylon and Assyria's military. Gameplay-wise, good points about Phoenicia and especially the various wall types.

In regards to Greece, I always knew that Greece wasn't unified, but after taking ancient history my first semester I realized that the city states fighting against eachother and setting up colonies was the norm. With Athens, Sparta, and Macedonia present, Greece will be weakened by conflict like it really was, and if one of the three becomes powerful enough to take over the others, then they'd be mighty indeed.

As for Israel, I'm not sure if it should be a playable nation or not. Israel/Judah were important and were in control of their own destiny, but they were repeatedly taken over and vassalized and exiled, so they're in a unique position. The Etruscans, in my mind at least, are a little bit less significant, and should be represented by 1 or 2 independent cities in Italy.

I'm just trying to throw out a bunch of do-able ideas to try to keep this idea afloat for now. When I get back on Sunday night I'll start to fiddle with my map again:crazyeye:

That was why I was wondering if it was possible to alter the likelihood of a nation reappearing; Israel should have a higher chance as they were exiled and came back repeatedly. As for a UB, A yeshiva would work well, replacing a science building (probably library), adding a priest and some more culture. And for a UP, it is too late to think of that, I need sleep...

@Cethegus: I think it was more an OCC. Not all Greek cities colonized. The most important colonizers were, IIRC (part of ancient Greek history doing this year at school) Corinth and Ephesus (which itself was a colony at the first wave). In civ terms, Sparta was a military force, which built 20 Spearmen and covered the whole Peloponnesians, while Athens had built cottages around it and had DPs with another 20 coastal cities (The Delian Alliance).

Yeshiva doesn't really fit with ancient Israel\Judea. It's more of a post-exile Jewish culture thing.
A UB for this civ should be determined at a later time. My current dilemma regarding Israel right now is leaderheads. It's obvious either David or Solomon should be leaders, but not both, so the dilemma is which one, and who else should we add (another king from a later time).

If you have to include them, you should skip the fictional leaders and add King Herod.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

Ah of course, how could I forget Herod :).
BTW David and Solomon might have (grammar error?) existed, even if most of the bible is just a bunch of fairy tales. And even if they didn't, there are some BTS leaders that didn't exist 100%.
Edit: Reading just a bit about Herod gives me an idea for a Judean wonder: Masada. which could have some sort of a defensive bonus, or something having to do with revolts (Herod reinforced it into a fort where we could flee in times of revolts).

Is anyone keeping track of this? Project managing, so to speak?

Ah of course, how could I forget Herod :).
BTW David and Solomon might have (grammar error?) existed, even if most of the bible is just a bunch of fairy tales. And even if they didn't, there are some BTS leaders that didn't exist 100%.
Edit: Reading just a bit about Herod gives me an idea for a Judean wonder: Masada. which could have some sort of a defensive bonus, or something having to do with revolts (Herod reinforced it into a fort where we could flee in times of revolts).

Not to bad, and without proof we should still skip the 2 mithical leaders and use the good one. As for the Masada how about this:
UB: Masada
Replaces: Forbiden Palace
Requires: The same tech needed for the Great Wall (forgot witch)
Ability: Acts as palace, city can newer revolt into a barbarian civ as long as your empire does not colapse, stability bonus in surounding cities. (possibly to much on the bonus part)

Is anyone keeping track of this? Project managing, so to speak?

I think Kravixon is developing a map and after that things will start rolling. He said once the RFCE Beta is released the modders from that project will work on the next, this.

But we should make a sub forum because all those Europe threads in ModMods is a mess.

There is only one Masada in the world, let alone Israel, why should it be a UB? It fits more to be a wonder of some kind, with a kind of unique story behind it (tho I've heard there were other groups of people who suicided rather than become roman slaves).
For the UB, something regarding religion could be more appropriate.

I'm back at school so I'll start with the map again. Some of the people from RFCE said that they'd be willing to help(on the first page), but it would have to be later on.

I'm really not much of a mapper. I'm able to make maps to use as scenarios for myself in vanilla bts, and that's about the extent of it for me. I'm trying to learn though :) If not the project will just have to wait until June.

Oops, guess I don't.
I was thinking of the ME map by -sr (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=311489), but wasn't workable. It is a shame he quit cause he could of helped.
But for the map, we should make it distorted.
-Make Arabia and east of smaller
-Squeeze everything above Alps
-Minimize Saharra Desert
-Make the Italian Peninsula a little bigger and the Greek Island chain bigger.

But we should make a sub forum

For one thread

because all those Europe threads in ModMods is a mess.

Which are about 10 threads and phps more :lol:

once the RFCE Beta is released the modders from that project will work on the next, this.

I don't think any such thing was mentioned. Phps it could be a side project, but I think much work on it will be done after the final release not the beta one

1. If it becomes as big as RFCE, Yes. We could put it in modmods instead of having many threads floating around.
2. The modmods used to be one different comp after the next. But now, there are RFCE threads that solely discuss Flags, Papal states, and more little things. Not saying that those are not important, yet would be better sooted if they had their own folder.
3. Did you not read the post before mine? Kravixon also said that in post 35.

I don't see that it would be that big of a deal to make a subfolder. It could just tidy the place up a bit. Of coarse I know that everyone from RFCE will flock to this, but one person could make a difference.

I see this turning into a flame thing. I see your side, but we don't need to waste posts on a meaningless conversation.
+ I don't wan't to be shown up on the internet. =p

I don't have any problem with RFCA of course, and would like to do some work on it, after RFCE is done. My point is: Why should RFCA have a subforum and not RFCE? (which has been actually releasing versions for quite a time ;))
I personally didn't view it as one, and don't want it to become one. Just wanted to make some humor

I don't have any problem with RFCA of course, and would like to do some work on it, after RFCE is done. My point is: Why should RFCA have a subforum and not RFCE? (which has been actually releasing versions for quite a time ;))
I personally didn't view it as one, and don't want it to become one. Just wanted to make some humor

I agree of course. RFCA, with all due respect, is still just an idea in the minds of some people so far, while RFCE is developing fast and will soon release the beta version. We have asked Rhye several times for a separate sub-forum but he doesn't seem to support it. Same with Rhye's new wiki where we're still listed as "proposed" instead of "In development", so we're not allowed to post our info in it. Perhaps we've offended our glorious leader in some way, but I sincerely hope not.

Now, I didn't know that. I thought that RFCE just sprung up as one thread after another, way before anyone would think of it getting this big, thus not creating a sub forum. I was way off.
I was thinking that maybe this would become big on the scale of RFCE and create a sub forum in advance. (Well not at this point, but after this thread had many different topics)
I'm playing RFCE right now as a matter of fact. I'm on my fourth game, playing as Germany.

And I hope we didn't offend The Father. I can't take any more plagues. :egypt:

Quick update if anyone cares to see how the map looks so far. It's rather simple, but you've got to start somewhere.

I'm uploading it as a worldbuilder save. Just run it in BTS and play as Julius Caesar (cause I know where he starts), you'll start off about where athens will be.

I made a grid with mountains, so a lot of the finished landscape is scarred by weird mountain lines still. Obviously, resources, locations, terrain types and such is not what we're looking at, but rather how the shapes of Greece, N Africa and the Near East look.

Greece is enlarged a bit so that it isn't really to scale, but I like it that way. Also, any feedback on which Greek islands to add would be appreciated.

I think I'll add Kefallinia to the West of the Peloponnese, and maybe add Naxos or Andros near where I put Milos. I think the big, islandy thing (name?) North of Athens should be more detached. I tried to just attach it to Attica, and it worked until I looked back at a map of Greece :lol:

That would be Euboea, and it's nearly as big as Crete.

Alright, I've fixed up Greece so that there are more islands, Euboea looks a lot better, and Peloponnesia isn't quite as large.

Any feedback from this new file?

There is no Corfu island. Being myself Greek, I would suggest some coastline changes. Should I post the file, or just report the suggested changes?

I would add Etruscans at least to the civ list. Maybe split Celts in Gauls, Germans and Illyrians if the map is large enough to include them all. A Ionian civ also wouldn't hurt. There are many mediterranean maps around, not just the ones in TAM.

micbic- I was unable to make Corfu without it being stuck to either mainland Greece or Italy, if I recall correctly. I've gotten a bit further on the map and am working on it now, but Greece is unchanged. If you could post the file, I'll see what you did and probably change the same tiles that you did. Eitherway, it's a lot easier to just show it then to explain it.

onedreamer- I think I can agree with separate Gauls and Germans (Ostrogoths maybe?), but I personally don't think the Etruscans should be added. There isn't as much known about them, they only controlled part of Italy, and their capital would be maybe 3 tiles from Rome. As for Illyria, I only know where the region is. In general though, I'm for keeping a lower number of civs, as more civs mean larger loading times and time between turns.

In my opinion, very minor "civs" like Illyrians, Etruscans or Iberians should be nothing more than independents. The indy concept is a great asset of RFC and could be greatly improved by events (such as Crusades in RFCE).

It's better to concentrate on the big ones, give Greece at least 2, and have a moreless accurate game. Something between TAM and what RFRE was in Civ3.

Of course I understand other people will prefer a RFC approach, all for the gameplay, but I think given a bigger map and a proper time frame as this, it can be an opportunity for a full "Antiquity" experience, which in my opinion, being able to play as someone as the Illyrians doesn't provide.

I'd even go as far as making all "barbarians" non-playable, at least a minor celtic civ (same as RFC), with another germanic and scythian spawning later; their wars regulated by events.

A jewish civ is a more complicate matter.

We should start with the main ones, obviously, but given the opportunity, I would like to see Etruria at least. The only thing that bothers me with RFCE is that it is too historically accurate, not enough diversification. Of coarse we shouldn't jump into anything, but when in Rome... (pun intended). As for information, I love looking that stuff up.

I'll check the map out now.

Edit: Just looked at the map, looks good so far. But only two suggestions:
-We should trim Anatolia to make room for some more Greek islands.
-We should put the map on a slant and cut down greatly on the Sahara (This would completely redo the map, but I don't want wasted space in the South West.

Here's the map with all the basic landmasses completed. Let me know if the Iberian peninsula looks distorted.

With micbic's advice/changes, Greece will look better. Italy looks very plain to me, but I don't think it's because the shape is messed up, but rather the fact that it's really long and currently has no hills or mountains and is all grassland.

-ZachScape: post #35 suggested the slant as well. As is, we keep the cardinal directions lined up, and I don't think that empty desert slows down the game.

Not that it slows down the game, but it would be used more effectively. It could allow a larger Mediterranean and less Northern Europe if we want to show the lower British Isles.

I think it would be easier to start with a completely watermap. You could then give yourself satellites so you can see the whole map. Then toggle bare map. And then, using printed out map of the Med (angled) for reference, you can draw it out first (using the strategy layer). Then, using world builder, just fill in the lines.
I'm trying that out now for myself.

Anyhow an improved version of the map. Changes in Greece mostly, and additions of Ibiza, Malta and Jersey islands

I think the Mediterranean is pretty large as it is, considering the amount of space compared to civs. But see what you can do.

micbic- Great changes. Just for kicks, I added some cities with 100 culture each to see how much room was available for cities in Greece. There was plenty for both Athens and Sparta, to the point where it might even be plausible to add in Thessaloniki as a minor civ/independent so that there is something between Attica and Macedonia

I think we should make the map wider next, mostly because of Spain. I like the fact that Spain looks squeezed, but there is little room for the Balearic Islands. I'm also annoying myself about the slant, but I can not stand the vast amount of European land above the Black Sea or the huge, barren Sahara. A slant would remove both of those, but still leaving room for the British Isles and making more space for game-play.

I think the Mediterranean is pretty large as it is, considering the amount of space compared to civs. But see what you can do.

micbic- Great changes. Just for kicks, I added some cities with 100 culture each to see how much room was available for cities in Greece. There was plenty for both Athens and Sparta, to the point where it might even be plausible to add in Thessaloniki as a minor civ/independent so that there is something between Attica and Macedonia

Thessaloniki wasn't founded until shortly before Alexander the Great and wasn't relevant until the late Roman period. It would be inappropriate for an Antiquity mod.

If you want a city in Greece, Corinth is the obvious independent, or Argos or Thebes. If there isn't enough room for any of those, Pella would be the choice if the Macedonians aren't in the mod, or maybe Potidaea if they are.

Thessaloniki wasn't founded until shortly before Alexander the Great and wasn't relevant until the late Roman period. It would be inappropriate for an Antiquity mod.

If you want a city in Greece, Corinth is the obvious independent, or Argos or Thebes. If there isn't enough room for any of those, Pella would be the choice if the Macedonians aren't in the mod, or maybe Potidaea if they are.

Macedon would be included. Corinth would be nice but Athens are Sparta are close as it is. Is there anything of note west/northwest of Thebes?

Macedon would be included. Corinth would be nice but Athens are Sparta are close as it is. Is there anything of note west/northwest of Thebes?

Delphi is on the northern coast of the Gulf of Corinth, you could include it. Larissa would be another possibility, but it wasn't all that significant.

krav I saw your map, it's good but feels a little cramped, know what I mean? Too squeezed.
Also the next time you change it don't forget to add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dead_Sea
:)

Which areas in particular are cramped?

Hrmm.

Sorry, I don't like the map, not even a bit. Seems too roman-centered and too "without scale".

For starters, it gives a feel of just like the same area from RFC a little bigger. I'd like it to have an acceptable room for Egypt and Mesopotamia (the latter should be home to not one, but at least two civs); which it doesn't provide right now.

Finding a nice map is very, very difficult. And in this case, it'd be better to define first all its constraints. Beginning with the size. Isn't it too small? It's certainly much smaller than the one for RFC.

Should it have the same scale in all the map? Or an upscaled Middle East (in the way of the upscaled Europe in RFC)?

Well, we should down scale Iberia and Northern Europe for one. And if we want the Indus Valley, we should downscale that too. Land above the Black Sea seems useless to have, too.

JediClem- The map is smaller than the one for RFC, but it's also meant for 12 civs instead of 28. You can found 6-7 good cities in Greece, when in RFC you can fit 3. I think Egypt and Mesopotamia have plenty of room :confused:

Zach- I really don't feel 'wasted' space is a big deal, but did you make any progress with your strategy-layer idea?

No. For weeks my XBox has been infected with the RRoD. I sent it to MicroSoft, but they sent it back, so I finally fixed it myself yesterday. I have been, however, trying to come up with the best possible dimensions for the map. I will give updates as I go along. (I'll try to edit one post as I make changes)
'Wasted space' isn't IMO a big deal because lag or anything, I would just like to see Civilization spread to the Four Corners of the Earth.

I'm going to frequently edit this post to show updates.

Initial Post- Reference Map
Edit 1-

Here is the idea I had for the map.
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z311/SHARPCLAW117/RFCAMapol.jpg
-I accidentally snipped the top of the Black Sea.
-The Straight between Somalia and Arabia won't be that small.

Hello there,

This project is huge. I always would like to play longer antiquity civs in RFC, to re-create alexander empire. I think it could be a good idea to add hellenistic states like seleucid, if greece (or makedonia if you add this civ) collapse and if persia doesn't exist, for example.

Good luck !

Zach, that's a good compromise between our ideas actually. Skewing some stuff keeps almost everything still on the right North/South orientation. I don't mind Spain being squashed, I compressed it in mine anyway. I don't really think we need anything above the black sea anyway.

I'm going to start a new thread based solely on map development, that way this thread can discuss anything that doesn't have to do with changes to the map.

personally don't think the Etruscans should be added. There isn't as much known about them, they only controlled part of Italy, and their capital would be maybe 3 tiles from Rome.

The etruscan civilization is very important, especially for the roman one and we know much about them, although we could know much more if the collection of informations about them written by the romans wasn't lost in the Dark Age. The Etruscans controlled an area larger than Phoenicia and Israel, or Athens and Sparta, if you really want to look at this in order to pick civs.

I don't see etruscans as much important as to include them.

They're quite much behind everyone else being considered. Yes, phoenicians and jews also (I don't know wether it's correct to refer to them in this period as Israel or not).

Right now there are very few civilizations, far too few for any serious conflict to arise. If there is going to be serious conflict, there have to be civilizations close to each other which have an impetus--other than UHVs--to fight.

The civilizations I would include (roughly in order of spawn date):

Sumer
Egypt
Babylon
Hittites
Minoa
Phoenicia
Troy
Assyria
Hebrews
Mycenae
Medes
Persia
Etruria
Athens
Sparta
Carthage
Rome
Macedon
Celts (sort of ambiguous spawn date, could spawn much, much earlier if desired, probably need lots of special mechanics either way)

I may think of others. And obviously we would want some Indus Valley civs if the map extends that far.

Troy would be, at worst, an independent city. I don't think there's enough there to really make it a playable civilization.

Akkad should definitely be included, and probably Lydia, though that may well be better as an indie. And if you're going all the way through Rome, you'll want Parthia as well.

There's no historical basis for a "Troy" civilization.

Medes, Persians, Parthians... they're not the same, but it's as if they were.

Greece can't support more than 3 civs (there's no physical space). For Mesopotamia, it's difficult.

Lydia is the Hittites, same as with the Persians (dynamic civ renaming).

Idea for civs and civ spawning dates

4000 BC: Egypt, Sumeria
3200 BC: Elam, Minoans
2400 BC: Hittites
1800 BC: Sumeria---> Babylonia , Assyria
1200 BC: Myceneans, Jews
1000 BC: Phoenicians, Phrygeans, Etruscans
700 BC: Babylonia ---> Chaldea
650 BC: Elam--->Medea, Jews---> Juddah, Phrygea--->Lydia, Myceneans---> Sparta and Athens (Peloponnese-Central Greece and Aegean) , Carthago

More later

There's no historical basis for a "Troy" civilization.

There certainly is. Not in a large an expansive sense, of course, but it would not be ahistorical for them to be included. But there may well be better choices.

Medes, Persians, Parthians... they're not the same, but it's as if they were.

Not really. Not at all, actually. The Parthians were not even of the same extraction; you're thinking of the Sassanids. The Parthians were a steppe people who invaded and conquered Persia, similar to Turkish rule in the Middle East much later.

As for Medes and Persia, they were at least as different as France and Burgundy, probably far, far more. And again, we want to encourage conflict and interesting gameplay. The competition between Persia and Medes is an important aspect of that.

Greece can't support more than 3 civs (there's no physical space). For Mesopotamia, it's difficult.

Of course. Mycenae should be gone by the time the Athenians and Spartans spawn; there would be a major barbarian invasion around 1250-1150 BCE which would wipe out the Mycenaeans and make room for Athens and Sparta. (The last part of the Mycenaean UHV would probably be to survive until the spawn dates of Athens and Sparta.) Minoa's collapse would be harder to simulate, but it's less important that Minoa be gone by the time the other Greeks spawn anyway. (And the Minoans weren't quite Greeks, either.)

Lydia is the Hittites, same as with the Persians (dynamic civ renaming).

Not really. That they were descended from the Hittites makes about as much sense for excluding them as it would make sense to exclude the Germans in RFCE because Germany was really just an offshoot of the Frankish kingdom. Lydia would probably be a better choice than Troy, though.

I agree with Jedi.

-Troy should be an independent. That is not ahistorical at all.
-Medes, Parthians, Persians are not the same IRL, but for the game sake, it seems like adding Medes and Parthia would be a waste of a civ-slot.
-Mycenae wasn't that extensive. They did strop the Minoan from rebuilding, but I would rather them independent.
-Lydia, Phygeans, Hittites is open for debate.

You are getting really literal. I admire your enthusiasm about adding civilizations and getting history right, but Dynamic naming kind of solves this problem. We should lean more towards having a more fun game play experience rather than following history exactly.
It's like a spectrum.

In RFC the Turks represent all the Anatolians in the region. The Ottomans, so on and so forth. We should follow that example.

The arrows show such dynamic changes.

Verily, I obviously didn't explain myself well enough.

I know those civs are NOT the same. But I don't support adding them to the game, as all the iranian ones can be put together as the persians, and so on.

If the AI in the Middle East is programmed to go to war a lot (which it should), collapsing and respawning should be frequent. It makes sense in the period. And a respawn hittites should not be called that, same as everyone assumes in RFC a respawned Rome is Italy.

Edit: and a civ is not a city. I repeat I see no historical basis for a Troian civilization.
For all we know, it's not even proved at all that what we have located as Troy now is the city Homer wrote about (work of fiction, anyone?).

Right now there are very few civilizations, far too few for any serious conflict to arise. If there is going to be serious conflict, there have to be civilizations close to each other which have an impetus--other than UHVs--to fight.

If you look in the map development thread, I made a rather cheesy map with colored areas for the civs to get a feel for that kind of thing. Greece and Mesopotamia will have their share of conflict, however, so areas do seem sort of empty.


The civilizations I would include (roughly in order of spawn date):

Sumer
Egypt
Babylon
Hittites
Minoa
Germanic-Ostrogoth
Phoenicia
Troy
Assyria
Hebrews
Mycenae
Medes
Persia
Etruria
Athens
Sparta
Carthage
Rome
Macedon
Celts (sort of ambiguous spawn date, could spawn much, much earlier if desired, probably need lots of special mechanics either way)

I may think of others. And obviously we would want some Indus Valley civs if the map extends that far.
I've labeled the civs by blue for included, green for the more likely additions to the list, orange for independent cities, and plain text for civs that I don't think should be included.
I've added the ostrogoths to the list, 1) because I think Rome needs more competition, and 2) that region of the map is void of civs entirely. I'd be open to Mycenae being added (as a civ or even just an independent) after seeing how Athens and Sparta cope with the status quo of competing with eachother. In the event that Mycenae survives or even is thriving when Sparta spawns, I wouldn't want to cripple the AI.
I'm also in favor of the map stopping right before the Indus valley, as it's only relevance is the fact that Alexander fought a few battles at it's border. In game, the likely-hood of AI Macedonia or Athens even fighting their way through Persia is low at best, while the likely-hood of Persia having the only access to whatever luxury goods would end up there is exponentially higher.

I agree with Jedi.
You are getting really literal. I admire your enthusiasm about adding civilizations and getting history right, but Dynamic naming kind of solves this problem. We should lean more towards having a more fun game play experience rather than following history exactly.
It's like a spectrum.

You guys are totally missing the fact that there is currently essentially no competition on the vast majority of the map. That's why I want these added, for gameplay purposes. Persia will be monumentally boring if it isn't competing with Medes; Lydia fills a void in Anatolia and fosters extra conflict with (what's left of) the Hittites, Persians, Athenians, etc.

Look at the civ map kravixon drew: enormous chunks of it are simply unclaimed, and almost everyone has huge amounts of territory in which to expand peacefully and without anyone contesting it. Is that really what the ancient world is about?

They way I see it, Persia will have to compete with Babylon, Sumer, Assyria, Hittites, Phoenecians, and Barbarians. Hittites will have to compete with Persians, and Greek colonies. I am not ruling anything out. On the other page, I put proposed and definite. Let's first get the essentials and then add more if we have the room.

You guys are totally missing the fact that there is currently essentially no competition on the vast majority of the map. That's why I want these added, for gameplay purposes. Persia will be monumentally boring if it isn't competing with Medes; Lydia fills a void in Anatolia and fosters extra conflict with (what's left of) the Hittites, Persians, Athenians, etc.

Look at the civ map kravixon drew: enormous chunks of it are simply unclaimed, and almost everyone has huge amounts of territory in which to expand peacefully and without anyone contesting it. Is that really what the ancient world is about?

I still don't agree with Parthia/Medes/Persia being split into different civs, at least not until we figure out if it can be handled by the AI. The biggest problem is that they all occupy the same exact area, and their rules pick up where the others leave off. However, I had a brain fart and was confusing Lydia with Ugarit. I heartily agree with Lydia being added. They'll occupy the western( read:empty) part of Anatolia, and can even represent Pergamum if it respawns. :goodjob:

As for Mycenae, as I said, it would have to wait to see if Sparta/Athens can survive each other, let alone possibly have their starts f'ed up.

I added Israel (which should really be called the Hebrews, to represent both Israel and Judah once they split), Minoans, and the yet-to-be-chosen Germanic tribe to my map, and made notes of what land can't really be expanded into.

Also, I would suggest that when tests first start, Etruria and Sumer be represented as minor civs.
I would also suggest major incentives for players and the AI in particular to colonize, and make the AI as aggressive as possible, so that borders actually fill out and the map is filled.

If I recall correctly, Parthia should spawn in the north of "Persia", while the Medes are more between the heart of the Achaemenids and Babylon.

I don't think this is that big of a difference between what happens with Rome in RFC and what would happen around Persia in an Antiquity mod. The Romans can, and probably should, expand into Spain, France, and Germany. Those cities will flip.

Likewise, the Hittites and Lydians should exist in different parts of Asia Minor.


On the other hand, I'm not sure that a Mycenaean civ wouldn't have everything flip by a future Athens/Sparta spawn. Since both Athens and Sparta existed in Mycenaean times, I think that one is droppable.

Also, I would suggest that when tests first start, Etruria and Sumer be represented as minor civs.
I would also suggest major incentives for players and the AI in particular to colonize, and make the AI as aggressive as possible, so that borders actually fill out and the map is filled.

I think Middle Eastern civs should we very aggresive, yes (for persians and assyrians the most), but not the egyptians for example.

And as for the colonizing, please not out of historical boundaries. For me that's a major feature in RFC. Phoenicians, some greeks (I repeat the problem: which ones? Sparta shouldn't be supposed to colonize, if so only a bit; could be Athens and another Asia Minor-coastal greek civ) and carthanigians should colonize more than others.

I'd say the Egyptians were pretty aggressive. They conquered the areas (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Egypt_NK_edit.svg) of two of our proposed civs.

But of course, we'll use settler maps. I'd like Phoenicia, Athens, Carthage, and Rome in particular to colonize a lot, as they did.

I think Middle Eastern civs should we very aggresive, yes (for persians and assyrians the most), but not the egyptians for example.

And as for the colonizing, please not out of historical boundaries. For me that's a major feature in RFC. Phoenicians, some greeks (I repeat the problem: which ones? Sparta shouldn't be supposed to colonize, if so only a bit; could be Athens and another Asia Minor-coastal greek civ) and carthanigians should colonize more than others.

The way colonization works is defined by specifically coded maps. It's not a free-for-all like it is in regular Civilization IV. All the plots in the entire map are represented by a 0. We fill specific 0s in to tell the AI where to settle.

It's something like that.

I don't see etruscans as much important as to include them.


LOL is the only comment one can make to such statements.

Edit: nevermind.

IIRC (my last lesson Latin was almost 3 years ago), the etruscan didn't have such a geographical impact, however they had a major influence on the early Roman culture. Now that doesn't mean that they should be a civ (I'd leave them out personally) but at some stage there should be something to represent them. Perhaps an independent city that flips to them.

Maybe start Etruscan at 900 BC and dynamically rename them to Romans at 500 BC? I know that Rome was built by Etruscan

Romans should get NO flips, even if Etruria is an independent. I think that adding Etruria will make gameplay for RFCA significantly better.

If romans get no flips that means the AI most surely won't achieve anything in the game.

Not if they start with an aggressive war map and an advanced army. Romans IRL started as one city. So AI can say team up with Etruscans, then BS them and conquer Etruria and southern Italy.
They did that with Latin League, but Latin league will definitely not be in our game.

As far as I know, most of what is known about the Etruscans is about their religious stuff. Indeed, the wikipedia articles on Etruscan Civilization and Etruscan History are criminally short.

What I can find out though from that and different sites is very conflicting. "From the mid 4th century BC, the once flourishing commercial and military power of the Etruscans was thus reduced to city-states which retreated into their original territories in central Italy. Rome began its attacks on Etruria in approximately 498 BCE and concluded in 264 BCE." (264 was when the Punic Wars started, for reference)

Which conflicts with "One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities that were either under Etruscan control or else Latin towns that had cast off their Etruscan rulers.[120] Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC,[121][119] the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC,[122] [123] the Battle of Aricia,[124] and an Etruscan city in the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC,[125][126]By the end of this period, Rome had effectively completed the conquest of their immediate Etruscan and Latin neighbours,[127] as well as secured their position against the immediate threat posed by the tribespeople of the nearby Apennine hills.

I'm for Etruria being a minor civ. I can't think of what their unique units would be if we did decide to make them a full blown civ.

I've been doing hours of research on these guys, and the more I read about them, the more I am convinced that they should be a civilization in Antiquity. Here is most informative, convincing, and compelling.

An MSN Article:
At the height of their power the Etruscans were an imposing military force, although this was probably not coordinated among the city states. The infantry appears to have been the mainstay of the force. The principal weapons were the spear and the battleaxe, the latter being used for throwing as well as for striking. The bow and the javelin were also used; arrows and javelins are frequently found in excavated Etruscan tombs. Helmets and shields of various designs were adapted from those of the Greeks, the Gauls, and of the tribes inhabiting the eastern Alps. Swords were apparently rare and highly prized. The cavalry was probably an important part of the Etruscan army, while chariots have been found in large tombs. The navy was remarkably powerful and virtually dominated the Mediterranean for almost two centuries.

This gives me three ideas for UUs. A axeman, but could be called a battle-axeman or something. We could use Greek art for it and just leave out a culturally diverse Greek unit. Second could be a calvary. The third being some sort of navy vessel. I'll have to do some more research on the calvary and navy if you want to go with having the Etruscans as a civilization. We may have to sacrifice some Greek culturally diverse units, but I think it's a fair trade.

Most Etruscan cities were laid out in the form of a quadrangle, with fortifications and encompassing walls enforced by double gates and towers. These building methods were also used outside Etruria. The wall surrounding the early city of Rome, reputedly built during the time of Servius Tullius (reigned 578-534 BC) was of Etruscan construction.

Their unique building could be a type of wall, I'm leaning towards a stonewall because of their advanced use of stone.

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578572/Etruscan_Civilization.html

Here is the flag that we can use:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2256/2077940441_995318ad81.jpg?v=0

Their unique power could be a 2x cultural influence ((100-Etruscan Influence)/number of civilizations with influence + original Etruscan influence I should say). So say they share a border with Rome. Instead of having a 38-61 percent with Rome, respectively, it would be a 69-30 percent with Rome. I concluded this after eading much about the derivation of Roman culture from the Etruscans, especially the religions part of the MSN article.

I have been following this thread for a while now without saying anything and I just think its a really great idea. I am currently working on some of my own stuff so I can't help out much but I made a few LHs you might want to use for this.

This first one is Sennacherib of Assyria, I figure he could easily find a home in this mod.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads/sennacheribpicture_5YW.jpg

This one is Cersobleptes of the Thrace. If you had a Dacian or Thracian faction he could be used for that. Or maybe ancient Gauls or something.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads/cersobleptespic_w9c.jpg


This one was made as Solomon for Israel. But he could probably be used for anything really.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads/solomon_03S.jpg


I know Ramasses is already there, but I also made this Egyptian Pharaoh LH too.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads/pharaohfinal_687.jpg


Then there's this Marc Antony LH made by pencilgod, which I think is a really good LH and should probably be used for an early Roman leaderhead.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=201491&d=1232917198

What do you guys think?

Those are all very nice! I think only Phoenician and Carthaginian LHs are needed now, the LHs for Greek civilizations should be easy to find amongst the many LHs on the site.

Sorry ZachScape, I'm all against Etruria in the mod as any other thing than indys.

I think that would be a huge problem for roman AI (even the human player), and how would you find a UHV for that?

It's just not worth the inclusion

The Capo, those are great leaderheads that could fit in this mod quite well. Do you have any links to thread you got them from?

Jedi, I agree that they could be independent, but they could be a great game play feature. They could have four cities that could easily historically fit on land, 300 years of domination and last 600 years historically. Depending on if we have turns of 3 years or 5 at that point, they could have 120-180 turns. I already have a couple of UHV ideas. After I research them a little more, I'll post them. Rome definitely should not be able to conquer the Mediterranean unless it was a human player, but given 300 years, I might be able to conquer Italy, like it did historically.
Etruria had the greatest Naval Fleet for about 200 years, too. They also have their own city name map for all of Italy that we could combine with the rest of Rome's map. Also, just think how easy it will be for Rome to get to Greece or Spain without the threat of Etruria. It would be more ahistorical that way.
We should start the mod without them, but just consider it.

Completely disagree.

If AI Rome will be no threat to anyone, it's best not to include it and put an earlier finish date for the game.

I'm not saying the AI should conquer the Mediterranean, but it should certainly try. And most other civs should have to reach their last UHV condition before 50 BC. It's very late game anyway. Think we'll probably begin at 3000 BC.

No etrurians please. 120-180 turns is almost half the game. We're talking no more than 300 years there, from a 3200-3400 total. They didn't even conquer half of Italy.

I think the game shouldn't be longer than 500 turns, because the early game would be really boring. Perhaps 1 turn should be 8 or even 10 years, since there probably isn't any real action in that period. And I think that the AI should be able to conquer the Mediterranean, but CIV has already proved many times that the AI isn't capable to do such a thing. Mongolia is programmed to destroy China, and it does sometimes, but certainly not all the time. In RFCA the Mediterranean can probably hold more than 20 or 30 cities, which would be hard to do for the human player, and impossible for the AI. Of course we can compensate this a little by UP but it won't solve the problem. I think that it's best to first determine exactly what we want to achieve and then focus on how we are going to do that. We can fill up Gallia and Iberia with some weak Native cities / celts, for example. If that's what you want, fine. If you want something else, fine too. But first we have to know what's our aim since there are many projects with great plans that stopped because the producers didn't realize what they wanted.

The Capo, those are great leaderheads that could fit in this mod quite well. Do you have any links to thread you got them from?


I didn't "find" them, I made them. Check my signature.

I think Civ4 was originally supposed to allow less cities than previous versions. In RFC that isn't possible for the constraints of the map (i.e.: Europe is too small and has to be crowded)

If we go for my last, smaller 90x33 map, some areas like Iberia, Gallia and Africa should hold far less cities than others.

The first question is how complex we want the mod to be. If you want to have something as vanilla as RFC with just ancient civs, that's very different from starting to add things to make it more "ancient-age" wise.

For example, I'd allow 1 tile gap between cities in Greece and the Levant, 3 in the zones mentioned before, 2 in the rest. This is doable I suppose but concepts like that require work, that's to say, time.

If that could be coded it is certainly a very nice idea. Perhaps it could even be implemented in RFC itself.

Wow Capo! I can't believe I let that get by me. My excuse is that it was too early in the mourning.

Etruscans depends on the size of Italy on the map. Regardless, I think that they should be a minor civ, at least to start with.

Nice leaderheads, Capo. I don't think Mark Anthony would be used as his name-sake, as he never had control, and Augustus would fit better for that time anyway. Perhaps he could be used as some sort of earlier consul, like Scipio or Marius. Yours are very nice,and I think that even Mindaugas could be used as David or a similar ruler if you're okay with that.

I absolutely agree that they should be indy when we first start testing. It would be the best compromise. So if there seems like a civ could fit there, we could put Etruria.
I'm researching them a lot for 3 reasons:
-Originally for this mod.
-I could co develop an Etruscan Civilization mod if all else fails.
-They are starting to interest me.

Completely disagree.

If AI Rome will be no threat to anyone, it's best not to include it and put an earlier finish date for the game.

I still lean towards this. The Romans are too specific, likely too difficult to get right (think Mongols in RFC), and if the game doesn't include them, then the map can be trimmed of most of central and western Europe.

Focusing on an Antiquity which would "end" with Alexander's conquest and focus on the Middle East makes a lot more sense to me.

You're right about ending before fall of Rome.
Arkaeyn, do you mind doing a brief time scale of the mod?
Like "3000-2500: 20 Years a turn" (completely random)
Don't research for it, should take 2 mins. I think I'm calling it a night.

Also, no one is a bigger advocate for Etruria than me. But for the interest of the community, we should start testing without them first. If it feels like we a missing something, you and I will know what. :goodjob:

Well, there's various gameplay decisions that would need to be made first. Where to start, where to end, how many turns, and what eras to focus on (fewer years per turns for that era)

For a smaller scenario, I'd recommend something like 400 turns. Earliest cities were around 5500 BCE, but more interesting ones show up at 4000 BCE, so let's start there. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_continuously_inhabited_cities)

There are a few different possible end-dates. My Alexander end-date would be about 300 BCE. A Roman conquest end-date would be around 50 BCE, or 1 CE for symmetry's sake. A Roman imperial end could be 200 CE for the split of the empire, or 500 CE for the total western collapse, and to line up with RFCE. Finally, an early end could be the Achaemenid conquests, around 500 BCE, thus lining up a Classical scenario from 500 BCE to 500 CE.

At any rate....

4000-2000, 25 years per turn - 80 turns

This is pretty much just Egypt and Sumer, Akkad showing up in the middle and Babylon and towards the end, and Minoa if they're added.

2000-1000, 10 years per turn - 100 turns

Assyria, Hittites, and Phoenicia all show up here. A Mycenaean civ could pop up here.

1000-500 - Olympic style, 4 years per turn, 125 turns

Here's where the bulk of the civs show up, like the medieval burst in RFC. Athens, Sparta, Medes, Lydia, Achaemenid Persia, Macedon. If you're including Rome and Carthage, they'd show up towards the end, as might Parthia or Bactria.

500-300 2 years per turn, 100 turns

The grand finale? This is at 405 turns, which is a nice number.

300-50 2 years per turn, 125 turns

This ends up with 530 turns, slightly less than RFC, and encompasses the majority of Roman conquests.


I'm also less sure about Indian civs, but the Vedas came around in 1200 BCE, and Civ4's Asoka is in the 3rd century BCE.

Thanks Arkaeyn! That table looks great! I feel like making a pun, but I have nothing.
When you lay it out like that, it seems ridiculous that we ever wanted it to go to 476 AD. 50 is a fine point to leave off, and if we feel like we can use more time, we can just extend 50 more years to the game.
The Romans had everything but Egypt, England, Alps and Illyria in 50 BC and that seems like enough. If we extend it to 1 AD (which is just hypothetical), Rome would historically have everything but England.
I'll comment on India when I get back from school.

I've been playing Rome Total War again lately, and I feel like it's got a pretty good monopoly on the Roman conquest scene, particularly with its various mods. The mods tend to run from 280 BCE to 1CE. The original game ran from 270 to the civil war, at 50 BCE.

An expansion was released for the Barbarian Invasions, which I think was necessary, as it completely changes the stlye of the game to have barbarians.

I'd suggest 3000 BC to 100 or 150 AD, with the most turns between 1000 and 100 BC.

Never understood why Civ4 starts at 4000 BC. The mostly established date for the start of civilization is 3000 BC. No Sumer or unified Egypt before that.

(with your timetable it would be 540 turns to 150 AD, you could still add some turns in any period)
And the game shouldn't be supposed to be played till the end unless you play romans. If going for the UHVs, I mean.

Etruscans depends on the size of Italy on the map. Regardless, I think that they should be a minor civ, at least to start with.

Nice leaderheads, Capo. I don't think Mark Anthony would be used as his name-sake, as he never had control, and Augustus would fit better for that time anyway. Perhaps he could be used as some sort of earlier consul, like Scipio or Marius. Yours are very nice,and I think that even Mindaugas could be used as David or a similar ruler if you're okay with that.

Yeah I never meant for Antony to be used as Antony. But Scipio or Marius would be perfect, I just thought the attire fit better than Augustus' would for the time period you are trying to cover. The background should be changed too because its a little on the imperial side. I don't know if Mindaugaus can/should be used as David (actually Ekmek has a David) especially since my Mindaugas technically has a cross on his crown.

I'd suggest 3000 BC to 100 or 150 AD, with the most turns between 1000 and 100 BC.

Never understood why Civ4 starts at 4000 BC. The mostly established date for the start of civilization is 3000 BC. No Sumer or unified Egypt before that.


In this case, I picked 4000 BCE because that's when cities started popping up in Egypt and Sumer. With the smaller scope of this mod, that seemed better.

For starting at 3000 BCE, this might work


3000-2300, 20 years per turn, 35 turns

2300-1800, 10 years per turn, 50 turns

1800-1000, 8 years per turn, 100 turns

and then the same from there. Almost identical number of turns to the 4000 BCE start I posted, just a 5-turn difference.

I like that a lot more. It could add a few more starting civilizations. We at least need 4. So far the starting ones are:
-Egypt
-Sumer
-Elam (If included)
-Indus Valley (Computer)
Various Independents

Would Judea be one? And what else am I missing?

*See post 15 on Map Development for list of civs.

I like that a lot more. It could add a few more starting civilizations. We at least need 4. So far the starting ones are:
-Egypt
-Sumer
-Elam (If included)
-Indus Valley (Computer)
Various Independents

Would Judea be one? And what else am I missing?

Have you thought about the Thracians who had a big impact on Classical Greece? Not necessarily as a starting civ but maybe as a playable one at some stage? And the Numidians of course who figured so much as opponents of the Egyptians and later as Carthaginian allies.

I'll add them to the list. Maybe we can bring the map down a little bit as to add more room for Arabia and Nubia. I'll look up the Thracians, cause I don't know anything about them.

This sounds great but I see this mod being (effectively) centered around either 1) the middle east or 2) the italian peninsula

How much of the Earth map are you planning on having available?

JCB, you can check on the map development thread. I think think the whole map except the very west and north will be the center. Almost all of the places on the map are planned to be filled.

Elam? I think in that area having just Persia is enough. Before it appears, indys (which would strengthen it greatly at spawn). In modern eastern Iran (out of Persia's spawn area) and beyond, indys/barbarians.

Bactrians if much.

I don't see much point to playable Numidians (barbarians/natives) or Thracians.

Arabians aren't that interesting. But I'd support having space for Nubia, even if just making it non-playable. Egypt is too short right now. I'll add tiles to the map south, most of the added plots will be desert anyway.

In any case, remember the original idea was to make things small and fast. There are a lot of civs already!

-This is just my opinion:
If we have room, I say, "Why not?" The thing I like least in RFCE is the lack of overlap. There are hardly any flips. The only flips I've seen is Calais and Prag (althout I think RFCE is still a great game). In RFC, it's hard not to find overlap. Especially for the Roman Empire. It gets torn to shreds. Same with NA east coast, Mesopotamia, and Mongolia. We should have civs practically on top of eachother. It'll provide more dynamic scenarios and more challenging gameplay.

You're confusing spawn area, "historical expansion" area and core area. The latter can never overlap with each other (that applies for any mod based on RFC). Elam and Persia occupy indeed the same core area.

And apart from that, what purpose does Elam serve in the game? None that indys can't provide.

To fill in historically filled in places. It was an extremely early nation that could be one of the starters. I imagine that without Elam and Etruria that the only areas have a lot of Rhye's and Fall are Sumer, Tunisia, and east Mediterranean. Hopefully we can put some dynamics in Italy, Anatolia, and southern Iran.

This sounds great but I see this mod being (effectively) centered around either 1) the middle east or 2) the italian peninsula

How much of the Earth map are you planning on having available?

The main focus is supposed to be on the Middle East, Egypt, Persia and Greece.

Italy is also pretty big but I'd advise Romans to have a medium-late start (not before 500 BC) and favour intense greek colonisation in the south. Western Africa is pretty isolated.

So yes, the main part of the game is supposed to be played in those areas. It's Antiquity after all.

Recalling the list of civs and relating it to my latest map.

- Sure by now (by cultural group):
Mesopotamian: Babylon, Assyria, Hittites
"Greek": Athens, Sparta, Macedon, Romans
Semitic: Phoenicians, Hebrews, Carthaginians
Egypt
Persia (Achaemenids at least)
12 civs

- In discussion:

Sumer (I'm for it, enough space and turns since 3000 BC before it has real competition - which should destroy it, kinda equivalent to Babylon in RFC, quick game, shouldn't ever respawn)

Elam (against, prefer indys, same core area as Persia)

Indians (there's a lot of space in the Indus Valley for the 3000 BC civ there and it has meaning later also, weak civ ala Mali in RFC, high probability for respawn, caused by the high difficulty to control that area)

Minoans/Mycenae/Lydia/... (I still think Sparta shouldn't colonize the Mediterranean. That lives only Athens to the task. Another greek civ from out of the Peloponnese is needed)

Arabs (enough space for a "Yemen" civ, what romans called Arabia Felix. Similar to the Indian proposal)

Nubia (against because I don't see much point nor what to achieve with them, I prefer indys that can revolt)

Etruria (strongly against, already gave my opinion too much)

Bactrians (for me it has meaning from 320 BC onwards, the map is perfect for them)

Parthia (I prefer to mix it with Persia)

Celts (non playable minor civ please)

Germanics (if the game ends by 100-150 AD there's no point for a civ, just barbarians)

I don't know... Phoenician influence expanded all the way from mid Libya to Morroco and north to Spain. Greeks came to Marseilles. Besides, the major late game Mediterranean civilizations will be Rome and Carthage. The Mediterranean seems like it will be pretty intense.
Rome should start around 509 BC. I think most of us are thinking about the Roman Empire when it is really the Roman Republic that fits into this category. If not founded by Etruscans, Rome should be an independent by 753 BC. (Istarted typing this post before you posted your last)

Here's an idea for 18 civs + 1 barbarians (germanics, dacians, scythians, lybians and generic early tribes) + 1 natives (celts & numidians) + 2 independants = 22 total to have the full map.

(natives and barbarians exactly as in RFC)

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4445/spawnsdemo.png (http://img12.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spawnsdemo.png)
http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/spawnsdemo.png/1/w720.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img12/spawnsdemo.png/1/)

The numbers indicate order for spawn.

The marked zones are core areas, neither spawn areas NOR historical limits.

I think the civs should be pretty obvious for everyone, except that 17 is bactrians and 18 parthians (the latter should predate persians as the supposed timetable until 100-150 AD doesn't allow sassanids).

* indicates areas which should at some set point become independent, no matter what (or cities pop up there if it's empty).

!! (not to be confused with 11 - hebrews) indicates areas which are supposed to be colonized by some civs, and if not done so (or razed) by a certain time should pop up as indy cities.

That helps a lot. But there are a couple I don't know:
-7
-6
-5

And are we making the Indians independent, but doplomacy enabled. Tha way we can trade for spice and silk.

I think 5, 6, and 7 are Medea, Lydia, and Yemen. I'd lean towards having Yemen being simply an independent Sana'a.

I agree if that is Yemen. We could use that civilization slot for something else. And way in the corner of Arabia, it looks like diplomacy would be a hassle.
Also, is 15 Armenia?

5 Assyria
6 Hittites
7 Sabaeans ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabaeans )
15 Armenia

The point for Sabaeans is, putting an independent city there will efectively block the pass for ships (as it's unlikely any AI will attack them from sea), but it's an important place nevertheless. They should be able to travel everywhere same as the dutch in RFC.

I think it doesn't matter if it's one civ more or one less, RFCE has more than those 22. Also the map is pretty crowded as it is.

Maybe making it Barbarian will solve it?

Even though I hate to, I am double posting. I think this could be a cool new feature to add to RFCA that hasn't (at least for me) been seen before. We discussed it earlier but I just got around to it.

New Types of Walls

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z311/SHARPCLAW117/RFAWalls.jpg
Top Left: Mud- downscale Y axis, maybe recoloring?
Top Right: Wooden
Bottom Left: I hope this can be added as a wonder. I remember reading about one king who bragged about his walls being so thick that two chariots could ride on top of it side-by-side. I'll try to find it, unless somebody finds it before me.
Bottom Right: Stone

Also, as for my Fort Idea, it could be implemented and be represented quite nicely by Walter Hawkwood's rips from Kohan II. Hopefully if not to fantasy-like, they could be implemented into our mod.

Forts (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=315398)- Human and Barbaric look nice
East Mediterranean (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=315821)- These buildings, especially the markets, is how I picture trading civilizations, like Phoenecia.
Mesopotamian (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=316786)- This one is a long shot, but maybe... We also have Unique City Styles instead. Maybe they are more appropriate.

Maybe making it Barbarian will solve it?

Yes, but that would also encourage any AI to conquer it, which is ahistorical and weird. Also being that far from any other civ's core area, instability would revert it to indies.

I don't really see the problem for having a Sabaean civ. Would be difficult and possibly boring to play, yes. Exactly as Mali or Maya in RFC.

Yeah, but it would slow down the game on some computers. RFC and RFCE use AI war maps, which tell the AI where they should invade in case of war. We could set the value of Yemen to 0, and make sure the AI never invades.
Or we could make a deal. You get Yemen and and me and Arkaeyn get Etruria.:groucho: jk

Warmaps don't affect barbarians nor natives (and I suspect neither indies, though I'm not sure). That's why you can see in RFCE Bulgarians take Kazan, or Spain conquer Riga, and the classical "anyone attacks Congo" in RFC.

Seriously, is that a big deal to include Sabaeans? The mod would still have far less civs than RFC, and I suggested some of them would never respawn after a set date (such as Sumer).

Yeah, but it would slow down the game on some computers. RFC and RFCE use AI war maps, which tell the AI where they should invade in case of war. We could set the value of Yemen to 0, and make sure the AI never invades.
Or we could make a deal. You get Yemen and and me and Arkaeyn get Etruria.:groucho: jk

Akkad's what I want!

...like I said... Etruria :trouble:
But isn't the Akkadian core the same as Sumerian? Dynamic Names and multiple UUs could mesh 'em.

And aren't Barbarians a civilization themself, or couldn't they be made one? I'm not sure how they work exactly, so I'm asking, but can't we also modify where they can/can't attack and also where the AI can/can't attack? Or we can make it so the cities there have stable populations above the city raise value?

Akkad's what I want!

Don't you think four mesopotamian civs is too much?

Even now having Sumer is stretching it a bit, as they would be very shorlived.

Akkad is to the northwest of Babylon, itself northwest of Sumer, and south of Assur.

http://kbagdanov.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/map-1.jpg

As for it being too many civs in a small area...I mean, the point of the mod is to do the ancient world, and the ancient world is focused in Mesopotamia, yes? So why not treat it like Europe in RFC.

You're confusing spawn area, "historical expansion" area and core area. The latter can never overlap with each other (that applies for any mod based on RFC).

The Arabian core area overlaps with both the Babylonian and Persian core areas.

The Arabian core area overlaps with both the Babylonian and Persian core areas.

That's true, Arabia-Babylon in 2 tiles, Babylon-Persia in 2 also and Arabia-Persia in 3. (in RFC)
Very minor overlap and unlikely to have cities except 1 plot from the latter (Sirajis).

Akkad is to the northwest of Babylon, itself northwest of Sumer, and south of Assur.

http://kbagdanov.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/map-1.jpg

As for it being too many civs in a small area...I mean, the point of the mod is to do the ancient world, and the ancient world is focused in Mesopotamia, yes? So why not treat it like Europe in RFC.

Europe is bigger in RFC than Mesopotamia here. Lower Mesopotamia more so. The focus is not just that, but the whole Middle East.

Akkad ruled like... 200 years, not far from the beginning of the scenario. That is no time at all.

They can easily be considered barbarians (they were so for sumerians).

Edit: and that map is wrong. Akkad is the same region as later Babylon.

I thought their core was Sumer. I a map and their land before conquests were centered around cities like Ur, Uruk, Lagash, ect.
Is it ect. or etc?
I never know.

etc. It is et cetera. :smug:

Native celts :( Could be nice to play them, some tribes in Gaul like Arvernes or Eduens (french name) were powerfull.

Arverni and Aedui could start in Gaul, they can fight each other, and with natives. Rome could benefite from those rivalities to conquer entire Gaul. In history, Rome and Aedui were very closed allies.

Here is a map with Aedui (Eduens), Arverni (Arvernes) and Natives.

But in civilization, besides Barbarians, everything is based on permanent settlements. If nobody is there then all we can use as them are computer controlled teams.

Native celts :( Could be nice to play them, some tribes in Gaul like Arvernes or Eduens (french name) were powerfull.

Arverni and Aedui could start in Gaul, they can fight each other, and with natives. Rome could benefite from those rivalities to conquer entire Gaul. In history, Rome and Aedui were very closed allies.

Here is a map with Aedui (Eduens), Arverni (Arvernes) and Natives.

Celts need to be there, for sure. But I thought of them as in RFC.

The main problem for making them playable is... what are they supposed to do? In their region of the map they'll have the roman AI as only real competition.
What historically plausible UHV could there be for them?

And only a few techs would apply to them, really. Or would you have them building theatres, libraries and trirremes?

In Gaul, some celt people had nice cities, with good trade each other and Rome.

But... Julius Caesar made them backward people and barbarians in his De bello gallico, the most famous source of the celt civilization in Gaul. Today, some of his comments on celt people is a subject of controversy.

Rome bring Gaul his civilization too, and it create a new one, the result of a syncretism.

About my example of 2 celt civilizations, the challenge could be :
- Resist to the other celt natives.
- Resist to german tribes and barbarians.
- Fight again the other playable celt civ.
- Why not add a celtiberian civ ? Ok, 3 celt civilizations but... in the other hand, mesopotamia could be overpopulated with too much civs, so we can equilibrate.

And only a few techs would apply to them, really. Or would you have them building theatres, libraries and trirremes?
Celts did it, but with gallo-roman civilization :/ I agree with you about the few civs.

Mmh... or we can give the possibility, if Rome collapse, to release a gallo-roman civ. That's a good deal !

Here is an article about the historical gallic empire :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Empire

"The Gallic Empire (in Latin Imperium Galliarum) is the modern name for the independent realm that existed from 260 to 273, during the Roman Empire's Crisis of the Third Century."

Gallic empire rised when rome collapsed, during the anarchy.

What historically plausible UHV could there be for them?
For a celt civ (not gallo-roman) ? Maybe control the celt historical expansion area (gaul, spain, britannia, austria), no losing cities from natives or barbarians, and so on.

How 'bout this:
One Celtic Team, non playable in the release. But there could be a ModModMod that could be released by you, and others who feel the same about the Celts on this map, that makes them playable, give them a UU and UB (may have to be something other than a dun, we may use that for a generic building) as well as UHVs. So far, we can't get rid of any of the civilizations on the map Jedi just posted, except maybe two, and already we have a few contested ones:
- In discussion:

Sumer (I'm for it, enough space and turns since 3000 BC before it has real competition - which should destroy it, kinda equivalent to Babylon in RFC, quick game, shouldn't ever respawn)

Elam (against, prefer indys, same core area as Persia)

Indians (there's a lot of space in the Indus Valley for the 3000 BC civ there and it has meaning later also, weak civ ala Mali in RFC, high probability for respawn, caused by the high difficulty to control that area)

Minoans/Mycenae/Lydia/... (I still think Sparta shouldn't colonize the Mediterranean. That lives only Athens to the task. Another greek civ from out of the Peloponnese is needed)

Arabs (enough space for a "Yemen" civ, what romans called Arabia Felix. Similar to the Indian proposal)

Nubia (against because I don't see much point nor what to achieve with them, I prefer indys that can revolt)

Etruria (strongly against, already gave my opinion too much)

Bactrians (for me it has meaning from 320 BC onwards, the map is perfect for them)

Parthia (I prefer to mix it with Persia)

Celts (non playable minor civ please)

Germanics (if the game ends by 100-150 AD there's no point for a civ, just barbarians)
As wells as Akkadia.

I just got an idea. How about we figure someway to code the game to accept the civilizations that aren't contested, but put the most controversial civs into a random generator. For example, we could put Etruria, Yemen, Minoa, Elam, and Celtia into the random list, and when a game starts, the game pulls out one of those civs from a hat. If the human player at the beginning selects one of those, it will automatically be put into the game, like in RAND on a small map. If somebody is strongly against any of the civs, or would like to see one of them everytime, you can go into a file, and put a 0 in front of the civs that you definitely don't want.
It would require a hell of a lot of play testing, bla bla blu bla. (I didn't feel like finishing that sentence)

Maybe we could narrow it down. I just want the game to be as fun as possible.

I think that there should be both the celts as they appear in RFC, and a playable celtic civ. I have no ideas what the uhv would be.

Keep in mind that the scenario will probably be from 3,000bc (advent of writing and a lot of other stuff) into the roman empire, whether the end date is 31bc, 117AD, or 476AD. Akkad ruled for about 200 years, and in the beginning of the game turns consist of more turns. More civs also slow down the game, and the "cost" in terms of game speed and work must be balanced by benefit a civ will bring.

My two cents, though, again, this depends on when the mod ends and how many civs. All years are in BC. I'll start with what I think should be in:

Obvious ones would be Babylonia, Assyria, Hatti, Egypt, Persia (Achaemid), Rome, Carthage, Macedon.

Others I'd include (and why) are:

Sumer(ia). First civ in the Cradle of Civilization. Capital can be Uruk or Ur. Later may be dynamically changed to Sumer and Akkad, before the Babylonians spawn. No Akkadians, they would be in the game for too short a time.

Athens and Sparta could be OCCs; if the Greeks are put together at the peninsula (one civ), Mycenae should be the capital at a 1300-1200 Greek startup. Athens would be more of a colonizing nation, though I think that the Delian League would be a more appropriate name dynamically.

Phoenicia should be in, as they were pretty much the same as Greece later on in antiquity, a loose group of culturally and linguistically related cities who were rivals in trade, but not necessarily war.

Israel/Judah: There's a chance Solomon was real, as well as David; either way, Israel (later Israel and Judah after the split) should be in. Israel may have controlled territory from Damascus to Ezion-Geber (just east of the Sinai Peninsula) at one point. 1100 to 580, with Israel conquered by Assyria around 720 and the Neo-Babylonians taking Judah later.

Harappans (India): Their civilization seems to have lasted until about 1300, though I was under the impression of 1700-1600. That's quite enough time to have them in the game, especially as a starting civ.

Parthia: Not the same as Achaemid Persia, this civ began in the east of the Caspian, northeast of where the Persians would spawn. If the game goes on later, they would start around 300 and would go play until the end, potentially warring with India, Persia (Seleucids), Bactria (if they are in), and others west.

Lydia: Not large, but important for a while. One possible UHV condition: discover currency (mint coins) first?

Etruria: gives the Romans a good foil in Italy at the start, and they colonized most of Italy as well as Corsica. 1200 to 260 would be a long time in Civ terms.

Not so sure about these, but they could work:

Minoans: Trading empire, maybe with a preference for Greek mainland/Turkish coast Cypriot colonization? Another potential OCC, though they seem to have been around from 2700-1400 or so, and did colonize some of the Greek islands.

Armenia/Urartu/Mitanni: 900 on (1400 for Mitanni), one UHV could be to not lose a city, since they were invaded so many times.

I don't agree with these too much:

Arabs: They didn't settle anywhere except for southern Yemen (one state was called Saba, or Sheba). Mostly didn't have any influence on the rest of the ancient world until 632 AD, way after this potential mod.

Nubia/Kush/Meroe: I do like them, but again, too much on the periphery and was mainly under Egyptian influence. Good trading nation, though.

Bactria: Not really important enough, in my estimation; generally under Persia's/Parthia's/Mauryan Empire's yoke.

Celts: Periphery as well, this includes the Gauls. Maybe as indy cities in France/Spain, but otherwise, no.

Germanic tribes: should stay as barbs.

Etruria is much more like 750-400 BC, stretching it a bit (properly till 500 BC). As to foil for the Roman Republic, I prefer the Gallic invasors.

Bactrians are supposed to provide a threat to the invading persians, same as middle-game indians. It's a big part of the map without civs.

Greeks will be split into Athens, Sparta and Macedon. I mean, there was already work on the map to make the place big enough for that. It wouldn't be nice to call it Antiquity and not be able to confront the first two! There's a lot for them to colonize anyway (though I'd make Sparta a little less interested in that and more in military achievements).

As for the Yemen civ, well, they were a major trade player long before the date you provide. There wasn't much point for Mali in RFC either. That a civ is included doesn't mean you have to play it, or even that it will have any impact on your distant civ.

Anyone else think Macedon could spread Hellenism with conquest similar to the way Arabia spreads Islam in RFC? I really like this idea as part of the legacy of Alexander the Great.

That's not a bad idea actually. If not the Olympian/Hellenistic religion, than at least culture (like the Turks) and a perhaps a theatre.

Thanks Virdrago for your 2 cents. Also, I think Armenia/Urartu/Mitanni should definitely be in the game.

Etruria is much more like 750-400 BC, stretching it a bit (properly till 500 BC). As to foil for the Roman Republic, I prefer the Gallic invasors.
Actually, from Late 9th century BC to 283. Using Arkaeyn's timeline on post 135, it gives them just over 100 turns. And that should be a lot of game play, as well as adding some flavor to Italy. We could have a more intense Mediterranean if we add them. There could be more alliance combos and make a "world war" (which we should have possible. Not a scripted event, but easily done. Like in RFC) that much better.

I agree with kbk as well. It is the perfect counterpart for Arabia, which he pointed out to me. I like Olympian better, as Hellenic is a synonym to Greek. We should have it possible that somebody else can found that religion, but route Greek's tech progression to go for it first. I think we should change 'Sumerian' to something else, like Mesopotamian. Same with Latin and Phoenecian/Punic. Does anyone have any ideas?

Indeed Phoenecian shouldn't be called like this. Maybe Baalism? Although I know they worshiped other gods as well. Punic sounds right, although that's more of an ethno-group.

Followers of ba'al were call baalites, if that helps. But yes, punic refers to Carthaginian people, and means "Phoenician" in Latin.

That's not a bad idea actually. If not the Olympian/Hellenistic religion, than at least culture (like the Turks) and a perhaps a theatre.

That would work too. After all, one of Alexander the Great's legacies was to usher in the Hellenistic era in basically the entire map you are considering. Well, that and amassing one of the largest empires ever known. Also, you could do the religion spread thing, and then require a certain number of cultural buildings (like amphitheaters) for a second or third UHV, you know after the obvious 1st UHV: Control 50% of land area by 323 BC.

I agree the spread of Hellenism with Macedon is a good idea, better if all religions don't give the same bonuses.

Macedon's UP should also be something to do with mercenaries. Alexander did hire many mercenaries in his conquest, without them he couldn't have conquered so much.

A Mercenaries-related UP is probably much more fit for Carthage, or even Persia.

Just think about Alexander rapidly expanding his borders with 100% home-city troops, it wouldn't be the same! In RL he had no less than 40% mercenaries!

I don't know much about Carthage or Macedonia, but I'm sure a lot of you do. So those enthusiastic about either of their history, and of the mercenary UHV, so come up with a realistic proposal for a UHV goal or a UP that will make the game more historical and more fun. If a couple of you post ideas, we can merge them if we find fit.
But Carthage's UP is "Mercenaries – Mercenaries hire and maintenance costs halved". I don't know if we do or don't want the same UP for Carthage in both games, so keep that in mind.

I still think I like the spreading culture or spreading religion better than mercenaries. That's more fun, and you never know when mercenaries will be available anyways.

On a side note: I think we should set up another thread to discuss UPs and UUs.

At this point, we could even have MORE than 1 power for certain civs. I mean, that's unbalanced, but RFC is unbalanced in its very core after all...

Mercenaries are more historically related to Carthage. It's true Alexander commanded a lot of "foreign" (non-greek) troops, but the proportion was growing fast as he penetrated the Achaemenid Empire. In the beginning, yes, they were almost all greek.

So a power could be to get free, non-greek troops (that is, no phalanxes, but strong archers or horse archers, which weren't often in Greece) as you conquer Persian cities (or cities in the historical area of the Empire, for that matter). It could even be limited by a time frame.

Maybe Macedon could have something like the Mongol UP? Not all of Persia fought against Alexander, after all. Many just gave up because they were a) afraid, or b) he was considered a liberator. Egypt and Lebanon especially (Tyre being the notable exception). This would also include a lot of his campaigns in Afghanistan and parts of India. Alexander was known for razing whole towns and killing or enslaving the population, if need be. Thebes (Greece) was his first.

I guess the only solution to this is let each civ have 2 UPs, but make each weaker than a general UP like in RFC and RFCE.
So Macedon could have the spreading of Hellenism but only the religion without temples and the like as in Arabia's UP, and another UP regarding cities giving up, that could be true either only for some area's or only have 50% chance of happening or so. With two UPs that aren't always around the same concept (like Macedon's conquer cities - receive bonus).
Then again, these two UP's can't go hand in hand. Even at full power each you still have to choose between them when conquering a city - raze and make nearby cities surrender or keep and get bonus religion (ofc cities who surrender shouldn't get the religion bonus, or maybe only a weaker bonus).
I can go on and on... I say lets give Macedon these two UP's together and solve the whole thing during alpha testing.

Idk, two UPs kind of makes them less 'unique.' We also can't have them a default superpower.
It seems like it is one or the other on those two, so if it sounds like enough people are enthusiastic about which side they want, one of you should create a poll thread. (But not yet, because I think <10 votes is a waste of a thread.

They're exactly as "unique" as before. That refers to the fact that no other civ has them.

I don't understand why a civ can't have more than one UP, UB or UU.

Them not a superpower? Why not? They're supposed to be...

This is all just 1 person's opinion:
I just don't think that the UP will be as exciting as it was before. For some civs, 2 unique powers would be very difficult find, and in some cases, very hard to decide 2 among the many. It would be further impossible when UPs overlap, like if both Carthage and Macedonia get the same UP, for example (which it is not). But say we do all the major civilizations, then look at the more minor ones, like Armenia. The only thing we may think of may have better suited and been chosen for a different civilization. And then we would make up something, making it non historical.
I also think that two would be taking advantage of it, but that does not matter as I know that I may be the only one that thinks that way. But, in other words, I think more than one is a buzzkill, sort of like mods that release hundreds of new civilizations, leaderheads, buildings, units, and techs, even though it just unbalances everything.

I'm in no means saying stop brainstorming UPs after we already have one, but I think the best one should win, or be a combination of some if possible.

Maybe Frankia's UP could be Macedon's? In many ways Alexander was like Napoleon, think about it.

Maybe Frankia's UP could be Macedon's? In many ways Alexander was like Napoleon, think about it.

Problem for that is Alexander's Empire fell inmediately after his death (as did Napoleon's, true, but I don't think that's the basis for Frankia's UP in RFCE).

It's much more appropiate for Rome.

Good point Jedi. Wow, Rome with a cultural UP that would be something huh?

Rome has many UPs to choose from. Here's a (good IMO) different example.
-Power of Concrete: Lower production requirements with city improvements (or anything)

But I have a feeling RFCA is going to be merged with the Greek World map. I'm not upset by this at all, as I practiced map making, learned a lot about history, and met a couple of new well... fellow fanatics. If it merged with GW, we would lose the map and a lot of the eastern civs, but it's not like we got any far on the game. With Rhye's help, the game could go smoother, and I (and possibly we) could learn a lot from Rhye's guidance. It will help me by finding out what does what, one step at a time.

I'd just like to see this project continue in one sense or another. Replies have dropped off, but it's too young to die. :)

I'm certainly not a modder myself, but I've been following this project since I started lurking here, and I would love to see it complete. I'd be glad to give ideas for anything that you guys... need ideas for. =P

I'm sorry if this was asked or discussed before.
Wich timespan this mod should cover? And which religions do you think about? Imho Egyptian polytheism, Zarathroaism, Judaism rly should be part of this.

We have a thread on just religions. And time would be from 3000 BC to 50 BC/ 50 AD.
But before we do any more work, let's just see how Greek World goes if we research it next.

is this project completely dead?:(

I thought it had a fantastic potential.

is this project completely dead?:(

I thought it had a fantastic potential.

RFC:Antiquity is suffering from the same problem that RFC:Europe had about a year ago. No body is willing/capable of writing the code. In RFC:Europe we a least had the map to begin with, RFC:A doesn't even have that (and no special skills are required to make the map).

Well, we have a map... moreless, which had some sort of consensus.

No, the problem is RFC: Greek World (well, it's not really a problem, but it is the delaying factor). I'm thinking while that is going on, we will see a game built from the ground up (didn't find RFCE until after it finished the foundation of the mod.
I wouldn't say RFCA is dead, but is more like... Rip Van Winkle.

But where is that RFC:Greek World? I don't see it anywhere.

It comes with BtS doesn't it?

If you refer to Rhye's Greek World, I thought it was for regular Civ4, not BtS. And there's no one working on it.

To put it a bit more clearly: around the time this project was losing some steam, Rhye posted a poll where he asked what the RFC community believed his next project should be. One of the options was improvements to his Greek World mod, which would cover much of the same era as this mod would have. Since that option is winning/has won the poll (if only barely), people are willing to wait for Rhye (who is finishing a RAND patch first) rather than duplicate effort.

On the other hand, if you all were willing to continue working on this particular project, that wouldn't do a whole lot other than provide a significant variation on a similar theme - in particular that Rhye wants to continue using the incorrect map that the Greeks believed.

Thanks Arkaeyn, a comprehensive answer at last. Yep, this one seems on hold indefinitely then.

Huh... I thought my answer was pretty straight forward. I didn't think anybody who goes on Rhye's forum didn't see that thread, considering it has gotten kinda popular, so excuse me for not being clear enough.
And I'm sure this project will be delayed until RFC:GW is moving into its later stages (like how RFCE was a couple months ago).

All you have to do to not see the thread is not check that forum. I'm sure there's lots of people in here primarily interested in RFC Europe.

How 'bout this:
One Celtic Team, non playable in the release. But there could be a ModModMod that could be released by you, and others who feel the same about the Celts on this map, that makes them playable, give them a UU and UB (may have to be something other than a dun, we may use that for a generic building) as well as UHVs.

I would love to make that mod. They'd start in NW Iberia (Galicia in Spain) or Gaul (Lutetia...same location as Paris) about 600BC (actually, I think it might be ideal to start them just before or concurrent with the Romans), and I'd keep the dun, but make the Celts' goals 1) control all of the territory of Gaul, Iberia and the British Isles by 50BC, 2) conquer the Romans by AD410, 3) be the first to found cities on both Britain and Ireland.

I just don't know where to insert those lines and into which files...

I would love to make that mod. They'd start in NW Iberia (Galicia in Spain) or Gaul (Lutetia...same location as Paris) about 600BC (actually, I think it might be ideal to start them just before or concurrent with the Romans), and I'd keep the dun, but make the Celts' goals 1) control all of the territory of Gaul, Iberia and the British Isles by 50BC, 2) conquer the Romans by AD410, 3) be the first to found cities on both Britain and Ireland.

I just don't know where to insert those lines and into which files...

Whis mod is already started. Go to the main RFC-forum. Then to the RFC-Greekworld. Their you find the MOD.

Whis mod is already started. Go to the main RFC-forum. Then to the RFC-Greekworld. Their you find the MOD.

hm...well, it is and it isn't...the issue I'm having is trying to activate the Celts in the 3000bc version of the worldwide scenario.

I can see nothing in the threads that will help me open the Celts as a playable option in RFC 3000 bc unocked. I'll continue to look, but if you happen to know of a particular thread that contains information about making a minor civ a major civ in a way the game accepts (rather than "you have been defeated" on turn 0), I would greatly appreciate a link as it will save me hours of combing through information that doesn't address my question.

TDK created a modmod where it was possible to play as the Byzantines. It is in the main section of the forum.

Indeed, and I've downloaded it. The thread doesn't really talk about how to make the modifications, however, just which modifications he's making.

In trying to change the Celts I must be missing something. He seems to have moved the byzantines into the unplayable greek slot...unfortunately, no such slot exists in the 3000bc map (the Greeks are tremendously important). Even if I were to swap the Celts further up the ladder in the WBSave file and move everyone else down in team number (would that even work?) I still don't know what else I need to change in the py files.

I've written to TDK a few days ago, but he's yet to get back to me.

You are right, however, that what TDK did is the closest thing I've seen to what I'm trying to do. I'll try juggling the team numbers next and see if that gets me a functioning Celts civ, or if I still start in year XXX and lose on turn 0.

alright, in moving the Celts up and making them a major, playable civ. So far, so good, but they still show up as "celtic peoples" in the menu (none others do), it gives me XXX as my starting year. I'm not defeated on turn 0, however, so that's fantastic. I didn't imagine that it could really have been that simple.

The only problem is that they spawn in Persia with immortals and all. It seems there are no persians, and the Americans are one of the barbarians or independents (Jerusalem and Afrosaib). There must be a command somewhere that tells "team 5" to spawn there. This sounds like s stupid question, but do you know what file governs that so I can change all the teams there?

The game crashes on turn 85, one turn after I spawn.

Still, I feel like I'm getting somewhere for the first time. Any thoughts on what to address next?

alright, I've altered the order in consts.py and citynamemanager.py

now I get the "you have been defeated" error on turn 0. What else is it that I need to be doing?


I'm also assuming I should eventually eliminate the Celts from barbs.py

I still can't find the file that contains the information giving that initial spawn location and units.

alright, I've altered the order in consts.py and citynamemanager.py

now I get the "you have been defeated" error on turn 0. What else is it that I need to be doing?


I'm also assuming I should eventually eliminate the Celts from barbs.py

I still can't find the file that contains the information giving that initial spawn location and units.

From My Games\Beyond the Sword, edit the file Civilization.ini to enable debugging. Then, when you play the game, in My Games\Beyond the Sword\Logs there will be PythonErr.log and PythonErr2.log files that contain information about Python errors and crashes. "You have been defeated" is usually due to a Python error, the above will help you identify the error.

.....

I found civilizationIV.ini, but there are tons of options under "debug"...do I enable them all?