This is a continuation of the thread started in the standard RFC section of this forum. Kairob has already created a 1500 C.E. scenario. I will post a new poll up which will no longer include the colonization option. However I will now include a alternate history scenario.

Chances are this new scenario might play the best as the main civilization that would be edited would be played by myself. This would make it easier to start up playing as them, as opposed to a bunch of civilization I had just modded using World Builder. However the other options can be equally as fun to play.

The options are an ancient start which modifies the names and locations of the starting civilizations to be more historical, a slightly later start replacing the Carthaginians as the Phoenicians, a classical start which has Rome spawn near a stronger Carthage and a stronger Greece, a medieval start either right after the Western Roman Empire fell or one slightly nearer to the first crusade, an Industrial Revolution/ Scientific Revolution start (which would most likely be the hardest and most buggy since there would be huge European empires about to collapse,) and lastly an alternate history scenario.

Ideas that come to my mind for the alternate history scenario would be a Roman Empire lasting beyond its fall, an Islamic Empire expanding further into Europe, a Mayan colonial power over a technologically backwards Europe, China as a colonial power in Western North America, and other possibilities.

The most interesting of the alt-history scenarios you mentioned would be the 'Rome never falling' Scenario. :)

p.s. since when was I called 'someone'?

Sorry, my internet was acting up so I did not take the time to check to make sure who made the scenario. I guess I will edit my post now.

Don't worry about it, I was only being jovial, I guess I should have put a winking smiley there to indicate it. Please have two now as a way of making up for it. ;);)

Kim Stanley Robinson's Years of Rice and Salt posits the black plage mutating and killing 99 percent of Europe shortly before the Mongols arrived. As a consequence Europe became colonized by a half dozen Islamic Sultanates, Industrialization begins in India, Japanese diaspora to North America and their subsequent blending with native culture and a 60 year world war is fought between the nations of Islam and an East Asian alliance. An enjoyable book would make an enjoyable scenario, I think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Years_of_Rice_and_Salt

That is an interesting concept. However I am curios how removing the European nations from the equation makes Japan a colonizing power. Especially since it was the U.S. which forced Japan out of the Shogunate and into the Meiji Restoration. The whole concept is intriguing though. If that were to be a scenario created it would start with the Mongols invading Europe? Mongolia could even collapse and represent the Sultanates, with possibly one major one being playable?

However considering I will be using World Builder to create these scenarios, unless someone is really good at modding and wants to do it basically alone, they need to be kept somewhat simple. For example, the later the start date the more complicated and buggy the end result will be based on the massive empires the AI control. However if it is begun too early the scenario does not shape itself out in the way it was intended.

Using Years of Rice and Salt as the example, theoretically the start could be Zheng He setting sail for the New World. How would Japan then be provoked to expand? However if the game starts too late there will be collapsed empires everywhere, and the game would end up being less fun. Its a great idea, however only the human player might be able to pull off what is supposed to happen.

This does look like a very interesting alt-history scenario!

I recall reading that the Nipponese isolation was ended violently by a Chinese invasion, and refugees took flight across the Pacific to Chinese colonies on the West Coast of Yingzhou and further on to the Haudenosaunee territories in the Northeast where they are warned and, to an extent, prepared to repel Chinese eastward expansion and Dar al-Islam, latecomers to the eastern seaboard. Subjugated Nippon would only later break free from China as a consequence of Instability caused by the 60 year war that also allowed Haudenosaunee alliance on the great plains to remove foreign influence from North Yingzhou.

As for Firanja (Europe), the Ottoman Sultanate makes an appearance. Also named are Magyaristan in and around Ukraine, States of the Golden Horde analogous to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus and parts of Russia, al-Alemand is in the place of Germany and Poland, Skandistan is guess where, Alpine Emirates is that mess east of Italy, Provincial Taifa States make up France, al-Andalus encompases Iberia and the Keltic Sultanate tries to oversee those weird white-skinned red-haired people that live mostly in small tribes in the remote regions of those islands off the north western coast of Firanja.

Jeez. Yanno, its such an involved book that to summarize what happens where would require taking careful notes as you read through it and then using them to type up a good sized essay.

Or, you could find a decent timeline http://www.geocities.com/heiankyo794/timeline.html

http://ksrwiki.philosophicalzombie.net/wiki/The_Years_Of_Rice_And_Salt#Book_10_:_The_First_Yea rs

A late(ish) senario, alt history, of course! Based on Harry Turtledove's Southern Voctory timeline, where the South wins the Civil war in '62. Thus, Mexico stays under Hapsburg rule, France and Britain align themselves with the CSA, while the USA goes toward Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottomans. Here's a link (http://turtledove.wikia.com/wiki/Southern_Victory) to the background information, and everything needed if this were to fly. I suppose the start year could be 1863.

Here's hoping,

Lean

I think that would be kinda hard considering how close Richmond was to Washington with this map. It's even an issue in the book (I'm reading HFR now, lol).
Cool... but hard.

I think that would be kinda hard considering how close Richmond was to Washington with this map. It's even an issue in the book (I'm reading HFR now, lol).
Cool... but hard.

Yeah it'll probibly be way too hard, but I just figured I'd throw it out there. And horray for another reader! I'm not alone! I think if the map was bigger (GEM size) Then it'll be do-able without cramped cities and such.

Maybe a WW1 where the US stays neutral? Don't know, just throwing suggestions out there.

Just to bump this thread and inform people, unless another option wins by a notable margin I will pick the alternate history scenario. This would feel the least bland and provides a greater range of creativity, and fun.

The extinct Europe and stronger Rome scenarios sound plausible to me. You have my support. :)

Indeed, both scenarios do sound interesting. How would you get Rome to last longer (i.e. what would you change to get this, besides just 'Rome lasts longer')?

Well we could have a world where Rome never fell so Europe remains under the control of Rome. Arabia might have never gotten the chance to create an empire. Rome could begin expanding into what is the territory of India and China forcing an alliance of some sort between the two(in other words they start off at war with Rome.)

Another option is to have it begin after Rome split into Western and Eastern and have the main fighting be between the two Roman superpowers with Rome controlling everything West of Poland while Byzantine controls everything from Poland to where Asia begins in Russia.

You have to choose your Divergence point, I would personally suggest Attila's birth. If we had him die in childbirth then the Germanic hordes would not have been forced to migrate into Roman territory.

This would have meant that the Roman Empire would have remained intact by the time the Arabs and Turks start to press onto their borders, as Rome is larger it might be able to resist the attacks that the eastern half could not, depending on how good the player is.

Russia, I think, should still be in the game however, as Scandinavia was relatively unaffected by Romes rise or fall the Varangians would presumably still have migrated and settled Kiev. Also as the Euros are (presumably) being removed they could be replaced by other civs. How Africa, Australia or the Americas would have developed without European interference could be just as interesting as the power politics in Euroasia.

Also what start date are you thinking of using?

I was thinking around the 1400-1500s that way it's not too modern but at the same time we can see how Rome could have advanced.

I like the idea of having the divergent point being around when Attila died.

As for the New World and Africa i have to think about the options right now since there are so many different situations.

Attila's death is plausible - it does help remove barbarian pressure from Rome - but with the chaos that Rome had anyway without the barbarians, it seems like they only sped up its demise, they didn't actually cause it. It seems to me that without major, major government reforms Rome was doomed from quite an early point in the Empire.

If we go with Attila's death by the way does that mean Rome will be split in Western and Eastern allowing for two people to play different civs?

Then in this alt-history scenario, not only did Attila died at birth, but a wise and powerful man in Rome rose as the emperor and established a democracy, he also further split the Western Roman Empire into several states, Gaulia, Iberia, Brittania, Italia, Tripolitana, and Germania, these states are self-governed but in the game they would be represented by the same civ, as they all have the same laws and world views. The Eastern Roman Empire however remained a centeralized state, with it's mega-capital of Constantinople, still ruled by Emperors. Its power however is even to the Western Roman Republic (maybe it changed it's name to the Western Republic?) and the two empires kept their good relations, despite their differents, (or maybe not?...).

So instead of independent countries, we would have democratically lead provinces under Roman rule? To be honest, I'm not enthusiastic about this idea. It just sounds like the countries will still be there as semi-autonomious entities rather than Roman provinces.

Then again... having Roman officials leading these countries and hopefully suppressing the rise of fanatical Christianity would lead to a whole different course of history. To me, Rome could keep its secular policy in its conquered lands, unlike the Orthodox East, to add more flavor in the mix. They're going to be the Western Republic and the Byzantine Empire, so naturally there should be national tensions between the two, especially if differing politics are at play.

I'm ready to accept it if it is to be represented more or less in that light. However, what I want to know is there going to be a background similiar to Next War? If so, I propose that the line of Roman emperors ended in the fall of the emperor before a heir could be secured (or a revolt) after which democracy was the only plausible option. Soviet Russia could maintain its lands after killing off their own Tzar, perhaps Rome could do the same 1500 years in advance. :)

One thing I want Kairob to keep in mind, for the sake of background. Strictly selected, inept political marriages were usual even in ancient Rome, so ending this trend in the assassination or premature depart of the King should have a major effect on history and how societies work. Perhaps the internal progress of the West and the conservative attitude of the East should have an attitude clash similiar to the British and American relations post American Revolution.

Well if they (The East and West) weren't at good terms with each other, say, even at war at the time the Arabs and Turks spawn, then it'll make it harder for the Eastern Empire to take them down, and they themselves might fall. Persia should still be around, no? With Western European Civs, what's to keep Rome in check? Oh, and should new religions be added, like Orthodoxy, for the Byzantines, in order to...increase tensions? Or would Christianity play a role at all?

Wow, I just looked back at the forums and saw all these posts. You guys want Rome to develop into a representative democracy, as opposed to reverting back to their republic? The question is why would they change their government? Rome would have to be on the verge of disaster for an emperor to willingly give up some of his power.

Maybe the West decided to reorganize after the Empire was split? One way to keep the Empire, in the game, is to stop the spawning of the European civilizations. On the other hand they could still be used, but all be vassals to the Roman core Italy. If those were the two options which would you pick?

For the Huns. How about the Huns attacked the Eastern Roman Empire instead of the West?

Zagoroth, As I said it could be that a wise, influental man (who perhaps was a "fan" of some sort of Ancient Greek Democracy?) decided it was best for the empire to become a republic as it used to be, and further "up" the stability by giving the areas of his former empire a government of their own, thereby reducing the risk that some parts of the empire would try to cut themselves off completely.
I thought that the two Roman civs should remain in peace and good relations, since without the aid of the western world the eastern empire is doomed to collapse with all the invasions that's about to happen to them from all directions. Now, in this alt-history scenario it seems like the western world will blossom and be more advanced than Europe in our time-line, but to offset this I'm suggesting that the Scandinavian vikings, the Moors, and maybe the Russians be a lot more advanced and fearful than their historical counterpart.
For the Russians I think this is obvious: with no Huns that went ravaging in their lands (and perhaps some Russians joined them too) their civilization should form much earlier and have an easier time competing with the Europeans, they'll be a threat for the Western Republic since they'll want the rich lands of Germania.
The Vikings, they could be a constant threat to Britannia and the northern coasts of Gaul, while the Moors try to take Iberia.
So you see in this scenario the western world isn't doing all well and good while the Eastern Empire tries to survive from hordes of invaders, and also I had imagined that the western republic wouldn't try to advance so much in terms of technology, but only be advanced socially.
Ofc this is only a backstory in this scenario for Europe and the area, east Asia should also get a backstory of an alt-historical situation.
(an idea perhaps: with no (or significantly less) Huns to threaten China, the Chinese people didn't focus on military as much as they actually did, and one of the Japanese nations from before the unification managed to invade the eastern coast of China and establish a civilization of their own there? I'll try to write something with more details tomorrow maybe, if nobody uses this idea).

It's certainly an interesting idea, which I like. One of the requirements for the reinstitution of the Republic would be that whoever wants to do that both manages to defeat all aspiring emperors and get the senate to an actually competent level (even by Augustus they'd pretty much gotten used to rubber-stamping). It would take quite the man to do that, and to realize that the provinces need their own governmental entities other than proconsules. Still, it seems at least plausible, and I like it.
(Perhaps at some point Roman central authority could collapse, leaving a bunch of little republics and maybe a monarchy here or there that's the ashes of one of those republics. I can see some internal conflict leading to a sort of Roman version of the US Civil War.)

And the East would be on the sidelines of said Civli War? Or would it be the enitre Roman infistructure collapsing, not just the Western half? Just the Western Empire descending into Civil War would be more apporperate, seeing as it sets the stage for the East to stay as a Monarchy...

Or there could be something completly different? Something along the lines of the Roman Empire dissolving, but not collapsing, as it did in OTL. Frankia controlls all what is France, the Low Countries, and the Eastern Bank of the Rhine, Ispania controlls Iberia, and faces rebellion in it's Western cities (A sort of Portugal), Germania controll all areas the Franks haven't claimed (All areas after the Easter Rhine Valley, including parts of Poland, Egypt taking all African Possessions, the 'Eastern Roman Empire' Taking the Middle Eastern Possessions, plus the Balkins, and Roma, still claiming controll over all territories, confined to the Italian Penninsulia, planning to take back what they view is still theirs.

Personally I wanted to rule the Roman Empire, not the fragmented union of ex-roman republics...

@Kairob: I just don't know if that long of a Roman Empire is plausible. Unless it fragments and is then reunified, à la China. (Another possibility.)

Would we assume Islam and Arabia still pop up ~600? That would screw over a lot of the Eastern Empire.

IT would, it would indeed. Anyone think my idea is worth anything?

It sounds interesting. You mention 'Germania' - does that mean a more stable Rome would go and finally conquer Germany, or is that just a Romanized name for an otherwise Germanic state? And why does Aegyptus get all of Africa? I'm pretty sure there would be a separate African state. (Rest of it seems good, disregarding the Arabs - they'd end up with at least the Middle East, and quite possibly up to their OTL borders.)

Yes, Rome would be able to conquer Germany. As for Aegyptus, I figured it would serve as a place holder of sorts. I suppose we could, in theory, put Novo Carthage there, to serve as a rival for Ispania, who is dealign with the Pourtugese Rebellion, while Aegyptus is Byzantine's other enemy (The other Persia, of course). As for the Arabs, you're right, they could, atleast, retain their OTL borders. A fractured Eastern Empire could either have two events: A farther expanded Arabs, possibly in controll of Southern Europe, or two: A Byzantine-Persian Coillition that effectivly crushes the Arabs and divides their territory.

I feel like having a dissolved Roman Empire, with the separate Roman states, would amount to the same that happened historically in the context of RFC. I like the idea of having a Roman Empire remain in power of Western Europe and having to face more powerful Russia and Vikings.

OK here's some more details about east Asia: The Japanese nation (lets call them Yamato from now own to make it easier) who conquered the south-eastern shores of China, managed to keep their newly acquired cities after signing peace with China, and also agreed that no aggressive actions should be taken against China by the Yamato people. China lost most of its glory, with half of its country gone. This encouraged the Mongolians to attack China much earlier, 400 years earlier, but without proper leadership and no tactics, they merely managed to harass several border towns and the Chinese army managed to fortify the borders to the north, effectively removing all hope of Mongolian invasion of China.
The Mongols then decided to expand westward. They managed in the following 200 years to gain a foothold in the middle east by slowly expanding westward until they reached the borders of the Parthian Empire. The empire was on the brink of collapse, with all the fighting with the Byzantines, and so the Mongols took them over with their swift raiders, their eyes still to the west, the Byzantine Empire were their new rivals.

More backstory about the mid-east and the med:
The Arabs in this world were not able to breach the Byzantines defenses, since the Byzantines were more experienced with fighting due to their wars with the Parthians. The Arabs decided to travel west, through the Red sea and on to Africa, where they managed to lay waste to the southern are of Aegyptos. The Arabs continued their march westward through the Saharan desert, where they met the Moors and managed to convert them to Islam. The Arabs and the Moors where now unified under Islam, calling themselves the Islamic Caliphate of the Moors. The Parthians managed to annex the former cities of the Arabs, Mecca, Medina and other major cities (There were still Arabs there but they decided to join the Parthian Empire), which means that the Parthians were also converted to the Muslim religion, they now had an even greater desire to destroy the Byzantines, the enemies of the Faith.
So in civ terms, Mecca and maybe another city should spawn as an independent state, being the Holy city of Islam, shortly after that small groups of barbarian Camel archers should spawn near Jerusalem and southern Egypt. Some years after than the Moors should spawn in northern Africa with Islam.
In Asia, a bunch of troops should spawn in southern China and be automatically at war with China (the same way the Turks spawn in the middle of the Byzantine Empire) and take some cities. No cities should flip, and the troops should be enough to take 2-3 cities on average (the southern ones are really good so they should be enough for a civ). They should be able to sign peace with China soon after they take a few cities (perhaps major stability penalties for them if they take cities in northern China to stop them from doing so?).
Mongolians spawn as usual (only 400 years earlier) but shouldn't have enough units to take over China, and get more bonuses from slowly expanding westward, preparing for the Invasion of the Parthian Empire.
So far I've only covered the years from 600 AD to about 1000 AD. I've added 1 more civ to this game (Yamato) (the Moors could be re-designed Arabs) so it could use up the Mayan or Ethiopian space (this scenario shouldn't have a 3000 BC start as nothing is changed until ~400 AD anyway).
For the next 400 years it could be about the discovery of the new world and the end of the middle ages.

I agree with having a mostly unified Roman Empire that way we can see something different then the common Europe in RFC. These are civs that came to the top of my mind when thinking of this world.

Some civs i think we should have in this Roman World.

The Roman Empire(Controlled either by the Roman Emperors or the Pope)

Byzantine Empire(Controlled by Byzantine Emperors possibly the Theodosian Dynasty?)

Parthian Empire

Northern Chinese Dynasty(Controls mostly Northern China to stop the spread of Russia eastward)

Southern Chinses Dynasty(Controls Southern China, can compete with India and possibly an Indonesian Civ for the Vietnam, Bangladesh, Laos region.)

Gupta Empire(Can Be either friendly with the Romans or at war with them as the Romans try to conquer the port cities in India they once traded with?)

Aztec Empire(We can either have them meet Rome or have the discovery of the New World be far later then in real history creating an even stronger Aztec empire that controls up to around Lousianna.)

Ghana Empire(Can be an African Challenger to the Roman Empire as it expands south)

Mongol Empire(Can stop the Russian advance east and weaken Northern China if China was not
unified by the time of its rise.)

Russian Empire(Not really any idea on ruler or stuff but can control what the Soviet Union controlled during Cold War(cept Germany) and be a challenge to both Western and Eastern Rome.)

Scotland(Split from Vikings controls Scotland and Ireland. Is a challenger to Western Rome in the British Isles.)

Vikings(Challenger to Rome)

Concerning religions

Catholicism(Rome's Religion)
Orthodoxy(Can possibly be split between Greek and Russian to cause tension between Russia and Eastern Rome or just one orthodoxy to create tension between Western and Eastern Rome)
Confucism(For Northern China)
Daoism(for Southern China to further make a rift between the two dynasties.)
Islam?(If we add the Arab and Turkish civs then mabye otherwise i would think Eastern Rome would crush this religious uprising. Could possibly make Parthia found it so that way there is tension between Eastern Rome and Parthia)
Judaism?

Its a shame that it would have to start with the human player already under control of the Roman Empire, but we have to use the 600 C.E. start for the Byzantines. It would be great if we could find only one variable to create an interesting scenario. Personally I would find it annoying to create multiple occasions where something unhistorical happened. So the question is what other interesting things could happen from the Huns not becoming too powerful.

The smallest change can have far reaching consequences. Here is how it could change different regions:

Rome
Would not have fallen.

Middle East
With a stronger Rome the Arabs would not have been able to invade the Middle East and North Africa; this means that the Sassinid Empire would be much stronger when the Mongols arrived and might have been able to drive them back. Leading to a strong Persia, but no Arabia.

I have put Japan and China below, these would be the least affected, but I put some changes here anyway.

China
The Mongol defeat at the hands of the Persians and the loss of their main army allowed the Song Dynasty to hold out against the Yuan Dynasty and eventually reconquer China. The Song Dynasty differed to the Yuan Dynasty in many ways. Here is a quote (sorry about its source but I dont know much about the Far East).

They had able military officers such as Yue Fei and Han Shizhong. The government sponsored massive shipbuilding and harbor improvement projects, and the construction of beacons and seaport warehouses in order to support maritime trade abroad and the major international seaports, such as Quanzhou, Guangzhou, and Xiamen, that were sustaining China's commerce.

Japan
I have been told countless times by a friend of mine that the Japanese didn't use horses until after the failed Mongol invasion. If this is true they would not have had horses, not sure how big an affect this would have had though.

Turks
Would Buddhist or Pagan Turks still have come down from the Steppe to attack the
Middle East? If you think it's fun then I dont see why they wouldn't. If you don't like the idea leave them out and blame it on causality.

India
I would quite like to see a Buddhist India becoming a major trading and maritime power, situated nicely between the Orient and the West.

Americas
Would the Aztec and Inca have survived with their empires to the modern day? Could they have advanced in technology enough to defend their lands? Could they have discovered the old world instead of the other way around? I think that they should at least have a damn good shot at it! Without European invasion they could have been a lot stronger if they remained undiscovered for 200 more years.

And the North American Indians, would they have managed to form a a large confederation capable of defending itself?

Also who would discover the Americas? China, Japan, India or Rome?

Africa
Ethiopia could be an important military and comercial centre. Situated next to both Persia and Rome (who would be in a sort of cold war), they could act as ficilitators of trade from one to the other. They would also be a valuable ally to either side if war broke out.

Secondly, would the Songhai or Zulus have managed to stay strong without European interference?

Australia
I cant see the Aboriginis developing a unified state here, but if Britain didn't colonise here, who would have? Our expansionist China? India? Our more politicaly savvy Ethiopia getting lost in a storm trying to get to China?

So nobody cares for a Years of Rice and Salt-esque thing then? I suppose it would have ended up similar to the Roman thing but with Islamic states in Europe instead of Classical. Are you keeping the imperial cult religion for the two Romanii then?

I would say no because if we are going with the invasion of the Huns not happening then by then Rome already is devoted to Christianity.

I'd imagine in my scenario that the Moors would discover western north america and south america, while the chinese or japanese discover the eastern coast of north america and south america. It would happen later than it did in history, so the Aztecs, Incas and northern american indians would be stronger and will be a lot harder to invade.
As for the Indians (from India, not north america :)) and Ethiopians, I really don't know if they should be in. Perhaps the Indians should re-unify themselves (should be a lot easier than history since the Mongols didn't invade them, or maybe only tried later on?)
The Turks should be in, I'd like to see them as "Islam's savior", who managed to break the Byzantines and rise up from their ashes (as they kinda did historically).
The western Romans I think should be Christians, as should the Byzantine Empire, the Norse and the Russians. Altho a "great schism" of sort should happen which will divide the west (western republic and norse) from the east (russia and eastern empire).
I'm not sure if the European nations rise up from declare total independence, but if they do it should be all of them at once and it should be a major world event, possibly involving the first world war in this alt-history scenario.

I like the Years of Rice and Salt scenario myself, but that's just me.

Europe won't rise up because the Roman Empire was their security and protector. The Middle Ages began because there was no one protecting them anymore so everyone scrambled to find ways to defend themselves leading to ethnic diversity as the Castles were built up.

The Turks are a little more difficult though because if we have them pop up it will screw over both AI and Player Byzantine Empire. However if the Parthian Empire remains and is not conquered by the Mongols this leads to no rise of the Seljuk Turks taking Baghdad. The Seljuk were the primary force that eventually caused the Ottoman's to conquer them.

As for the New World it all depends on the Powerhouse nations opinions of exploration and technology. Japan if we keep it's isolation policy will not be discovering America. China on the other hand has the possiblity if Zheng He somehow makes it to the Western Coast of America. As for Rome itself it depends more on whether they want to explore more(If it was true that the Phonecians discovered the New World first then Rome might get the urge to discover the lands the Phonecians found.)

If we are assuming the Chinese kept its massive fleet I would assume the New World would be discovered at roughly the same time.

Exactly only difference may be that China discovers California first and then the Aztecs which might change how the New World reacts with the Old World.

Well assuming they act like the Spanish they wold probably discover the Aztecs with a few years of colonizing California. However the Chinese as example of them building the Treasure Fleet, were more interested in showing the world their dominance. Not necessarily however did they want to control the whole world. Maybe the Chinese would colonize the Americas, but not conquer the Aztecs or Incans?

That was what i was thinking that instead China and the Aztecs would get along and possibly make them like Korea as a tribute state?

China would definitely just vassalize the Aztecs, it would never feel it necessary to directly administer them. Odds are they'd adopt a whole lot of Chinese technology, and be able to remain a distinct nation for a whole lot longer than OTL.

Japan
I have been told countless times by a friend of mine that the Japanese didn't use horses until after the failed Mongol invasion. If this is true they would not have had horses, not sure how big an affect this would have had though.
No offense to your friend, but that's completely wrong. Early Japanese warfare was based mainly on mounted archers - it was actually considered sacred and public displays were banned in 698 - and was extensively used until the 1500s with the introduction of gunpowder.

I just thought, without the Yuan Dynasty and the Ottoman Turks to take gunpowder to Europe and with the Native Americans having trade links with China it would be possible (perhaps even likely) that not only would the Aztecs get gunpowder before the Europeans but that they might seek to contact Europe rather than the other way around (in order to cut Persia out of the Silk Route)

Even without the Ottoman Turks whoever was there would most likely adopt gunpowder from the Silk Road. I am assuming crusades still would have happened, since there is a Christian Europe and a Muslim Middle East, so gunpowder would most likely have spread.

In my version of events there is no Islam, but if you like it you can have it in by all means. Also, most Chinese Dynasties kept their state secrets very well (like the silk worm); the Yuan Dynasty was an exception, letting a lot of Chinese inventions leave the region. Without them, it is less likely such things would have reached Europe (though not impossible).

Well if the Mongols still try to invade the different countries throughout the world then there is still a chance for Europe to gain gunpowder even without the Silk Road. It seems through the Franco-Mongol Alliance during the Seventh Crusade helped to bring some gunpowder into Europe.

I think an important thing now to do is.
A. List the Civilizations we want in the Alternate History
B. Pick Religions that would exsist in this timeline
C. Decide upon what government most civs followed and who their leader was
D. Pick a starting date.

I agree with Rallas's plan.

@Kairob: Out of curiosity, what would be the reasoning behind the absence of Islam?

That the Arab Caliphate lost its wars against Byzantium and Persia and as a result Islam never became important and either slowly died out or is a regional curiosity.

I can start a drawing up idea of example civs i had done so earlier but it was far from complete and had some of my own ideas involved with it.

@Kairob - That would make sense, unless it ends up getting spread non-militarily.

@Rallas - Sounds good to me.

Quick question - would the Saxon invasion of Britain still occur, or would the Brits still be mainly Celtic?

Since the Saxons were not pushed by the Huns to advance anywhere they would remain in Germania and thus the Brits would be split between Roman and Celts.

So what about the Arabian Penninsulia? Would Persia and Byzantium divide it, would Persia simply absorb the whole thing, or would it stay unpopulated by a large civlization after the defeat of the Arabian Caliphate?

I would expect it to stay Arabian, perhaps as an Arabian Caliphate confined to Arabia (likely still Islamic, but possibly less and less so).

@Rallas - Awesome! I propose we steal Brithenig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brithenig) for the British Romance language (for names and stuff).

Okay here is a first draft of civilizations for this alternate history. For certain civs i will give a reason for their exsistance and also the government they follow and leader. Others i'll give no explanation as i cannot find one or there is no need.

1. Roman Empire(Authoritarian leadership possibly Theocracy depends on whether people wish for the Emperor to remain in power or if the Pope overtook control after a certain date.)
2. Byzantine Empire(Same leadership as in real byzantine we can even use the real Emperor names if we want it to be that similar.)
3. Persia(Was thinking mabye the Parthian Empire remained together to keep from Rome or Byzantine from taking them over.)
4. Arabia(can keep the Middle East active in war. Fierce enemies with Persia and the Byzantines may or may not have Islam depends. If Islam is ingame then theocracy otherwise a Chiefdom form of government sounds good since they were mostly nomads at first.)
5. China(The Dynasty system. A good idea is to find a realistic Emperor or Empress to have as the leader or even create one.)
6. Mongolia(Khanate system. Ghengis ruling?)
7. Japan(Monarchy?)
8. Celts(Will be located in Scotland and Ireland as fierce enemies of the England and German Rome territory.)
9. Vikings
10. Russia(Tsardom created early on?)
11. Mali(Can be effective in making sure Rome cannot expand further south into Africa. Monarchy with Mansa Musa mabye as a leader.)
12. Ethiopia(Can be effective in making sure the Byzantine's cannot expand further south from Egypt. The Aksumite Empire?)
13. Aztecs(Aztec Empire)
14. Inca(Inca Empire)
15. Native Americans(if we decide that China finds the Aztecs first we can make it so the Aztec get the idea of invading the Native American lands forcing them to ally together to fight the Aztecs and Chinese colonists. Would be like a Confederacy similar to the Iroquois only having more tribes.)
16. Australian Aboriginees(To give Australia a civ so that it doesn't remain empty forever. Could start a chiefdom design and move later on into a Monarchy or Dictatorship?)
17. India(Gupta Empire?)

There is space for like one or two more right? Anyways I guess I could also list the religions since those are shorter.

1. Catholicism
2. Orthodoxy?(to keep the Roman and Byzantine Empires not completely friendly and just stomp over all their enemies.)
3. Confucism
4. Celtic Gods?(To further seperate the Romans from the Celts and mabye Vikings?)
5. Hinduism
6. Buddhism
7. Judaism?(Had Judaism because of the tolerance that the romans let the Jews practice their religion perhaps it spread further in this alternate world?

16. Australian Aboriginees(To give Australia a civ so that it doesn't remain empty forever. Could start a chiefdom design and move later on into a Monarchy or Dictatorship?)

I like most of your civs but I don't like this one. The indigenous Australians showed no signs (to my knowledge) of even wanting to form a large government governing the continent. Maybe have it as a breakaway state after being colonised by China, Japan or India.

That works to me. the Aboriginees was just some way to create a civ on Australia so that it doesnt completely remain empty.

So the whole Roman empire is one civ - we're going with that? Or have we decided? I for one am convinced that a contiguous Roman empire could not last until 1500 (which is probably when China would discover the Aztecs, as mentioned).

The Native American civ is a cool idea (mildly implausible though, considering the massive diversity of language and culture in any substantial area), but if we have a pre-1600 start whether or not it would spawn would depend on in-game events, rather than a fixed date. (If the Aztecs ignored the rest of North America, their spawn would be completely implausible.)

And I agree with Kairob on the Aborigines - they had exposure to agriculture (well, at least some did, by trading with people on islands south of New Guinea) and expressly chose not to adopt it.

We're splitting Rome to be what it was at the time of Theodosius I. Only adding little territory to Rome and possibly the Byzantine like Germany.

Concerning Starting date i'd say anywhere from 400-700AD at the starting date. Nations that would start at spawn would be Rome, Byzantine, China, and Persia? or should we have mabye Ethiopia and Japan start with them as well?(The other option is to have them start at a later date and give them a reason for this date like sucessful unification of government that didn't happen because of Rome not falling or something like that.)

About the Native Americans because of China being the one that historically(in this alt history) discovers America the Aztecs get the ida of working with the Chinese into conquering the midwest of America this forces the Native Americans to unify to combat the invading armies(spawn date mabye around 1600-1700 for them?)

Having the Celtic Gods is unnecessary. Christianity had started to spread among the Celts in the fifth century.

So we replace the Celtic Gods with Islam perhaps?

Or some form of revived Imperial Cult?

I kind of like the Imperial Cult idea, but if things go the way they went OTL, we'd still end up with an almost totally Christian Rome. Replacing it with Islam works.

We're splitting Rome to be what it was at the time of Theodosius I. Only adding little territory to Rome and possibly the Byzantine like Germany.
Dang, I was hoping to play some successor states.

Concerning Starting date i'd say anywhere from 400-700AD at the starting date. Nations that would start at spawn would be Rome, Byzantine, China, and Persia? or should we have mabye Ethiopia and Japan start with them as well?(The other option is to have them start at a later date and give them a reason for this date like sucessful unification of government that didn't happen because of Rome not falling or something like that.)

Something like perhaps 500 AD? I think Japan should also spawn at the start, they were in full swing by the 600s. (I don't know much about Ethiopia.)

About the Native Americans because of China being the one that historically(in this alt history) discovers America the Aztecs get the ida of working with the Chinese into conquering the midwest of America this forces the Native Americans to unify to combat the invading armies(spawn date mabye around 1600-1700 for them?)
Hmm....
They never did this to combat Western armies (sure, in small groups, but nothing that could be called a 'civilization'), so I'm not quite sure they would to combat a Chinese/Aztec force. As cool as it would be to have them, I'm just not sure it's plausible.

If we REALLY want another Native American civ we could just have an Iroquois Confederacy, spawn date in 1150.

I would have listed the Imperial Cult but by the starting time the cult was already not the primary religion of the Romans.

500AD works for me. Japan starting at the start date works as well. I don't want to place too many civs onto the starting date so we limit to Rome, Byzantine, Japan, China, and Persia?

The Iroquois Confederacy would probably be more powerful due to not having to be forced into European politics and such so perhaps they are a good Native American civ to start and replace where the US would have started.

Those starting civs look good.

Of course, the Iroquois wouldn't take all of the US's starting area. We'd also have to make sure to put enough barbarian pressure on them that they don't just take over all of North America.

Exactly. We don't want a super powered Iroguois that can throw back any invasion attempts made by China or Rome (If Rome makes an expidition, that is), or the Vikings or someone. So it's a 500 AD then? Shouldn't Ethopia spawn at start also? The Kingdom of Aksum was most deffinatly around in this peroid.

Okay we can add Ethiopia but i'd say no more only cause we do want civs to spawn and not just all start at 0 right?

That is another question. Do we have an American civilization spawn as a decolonization of either the Chinese or Rome?

Honestly, America would be so ridiculously different if it spawned from China as opposed to England I don't think we could have any real way of simulating it. Rome wouldn't really fit in the timeline.

Indeed. The only way we could simulate it would be if there were two separate civs, and the game chose which to spawn based on who already owns the tiles.

Or we could have a European one on the east coast and a Chinese one on the west coast.

There is a possiblity of a Roman America we just have to

A. Decide why Rome would expand to the East Coast( If we make it like normal America.)
B. Find a reason for why America is breaking away from Rome(possiblities include war of independence, Rome can manage better with America having its own gov., etc.)
C. Decide if the Iroquois Confederacy will be in the game.(If it is then it would be more of a pain for Roman America as they would probably fight over cities.)

Otherwise we could create a Chinese America situated on the West Coast.

I agree that we could create a Roman America if we do meet those three criteria, but I'm saying even if there is a Chinese America, there's no way we could guess how it would be. First of all, it would be guaranteed not to be called America. Second, pre-1900, the USA was mostly descendants of the original English/Western European. A Chinese break-away America would almost assuredly act completely different than actual America. Who says that would try Manifest Destiny? China hated the barbarians on their borders(I'm sure they would see Indians this way), but even when they did invade/conquer these groups, they rarely held the territories for long periods of time. We couldn't even begin to make UHV, UPs, UUs, or UBs for this America, we have no idea what it would be like whatsoever.

These facts are indeed true so if we are going to create any form of America it would have to be a Roman America or no America at all.

I disagree that we can't make a Chinese version of America. While there may not be any definite answers to the questions Mekajiki has raised, there certainly are plausible answers. (The same questions could justify not adding a Roman America, or for that matter, never having any civ that didn't already exist OTL.) We could work out a game-external timeline to give them an identity, and then transpose them into the game.

I think though we should have both a Roman and Chinese America, the Romans on the East Coast and the Chinese on the West Coast.

Well I don't know about you but I can imagine at least 1 UHV for each of these Americas: Destroy the other one.
4 more to go?

I like that idea a lot. It also adds the Manifest Destiny idea to each side.

Will the conflict between Roman America and Chinese America lead to conflict between Rome and China themselves? How will Russia be involved?

Also, I still think the two Americas need some way to play in the world stage, because the lands of America are resource-heavy enough to support two and probably more Great Powers.

I think that definently the conflict should effect Rome and China. If it did it could cause a World War with each of the nations of the world taking sides. Russia could either take a side or even go against both China and Rome hoping to get territory from both.

As for these new Americas' something that has to be decided is when they form their nation. If we want the two to fight they would have to be close in age(one being older hten the other by at the most i'd say 100 years) so that it could seem that the one America is encroaching with a superior military on the other. The Other America calls from help from Rome(or China.) The mother country sends forces. The other mother country also sends forces seeing their rival sending them. War is declared between mother countries. All the other nations begin to take sides.

This is looking really good. I like the ideas ^_^

Russia depends on how far it goes. It probably won't have a border with Rome (probably some German or Slavic state(s)), but if it goes all expansionist like in OTL it will have one with China. So it's got three options - neutrality (for obvious reasons), join China (to avoid a battle in their far east, and possibly to take some stuff on the west front if any statelet is allied with Rome), or join Rome (to take some stuff from China).

The older American nation would probably be Chinese.

Couple of interesting thoughts to mention.
1 - the Chinese government would likely not sponsor wholesale colonization of America, odds are it'll be for personal or commercial gain. A lot of it would probably be like English colonization, peasants seeking an easier life in the New World.
2 - What would Japan's position on colonization be? Under Nobunaga, who knows, it might get in on it (if we save him from assassination); and under Hideyoshi they certainly would. An idea me and some friends had a while ago involved China being a counterpart to Spain (taking stuff from the natives (though likely not total conquest), but never really colonizing), and Japan being a counterpart to Britain (really getting in on colonization, and having an epic navy and a lot of overseas possessions in the 1800s).

So Chinese peasants emigrate to the west coast of Yingzhou to escape an ever more rigid social structure that leaves families trapped in their economic strata for generations (represented by later Chinese leaders favoring caste). Largely ignored initially by the power structure of the motherland, Chinese resource extraction colonies on the west coast grow and prosper from an influx of immigrants seeking a place far from the civil service exams that favor the wealthy and connected. Finally the imperial court takes notice of the lawlessness and (more importantly) recognizes the economic value of the colonies and seeks, by any means necessary, to bring it closer into the traditional Chinese fold. This precipitates a crisis as many of the peasant immigrants have become wealthy and powerful in the new world and value their freedom (emancipation) the Nouveau riche of the west coast colonies stage a rebellion (much like the wealthy merchants and plantation owners of the English colonies) to ensure their continued prosperity using buzzwords like "equality of opportunity for all men" and the "corrupt imperial court seeking to become wealthier at your expense".
The bid for independence was a success, and with trans-pacific talk of wealth for all in the new world, immigrants from all of Asia are making their way to the ports of West Yingzhou. But this wealth is not to be had in the well established cities of the coast where the Gentlemen farmers and merchants now hold considerable power in the new world now that the influence from the motherland is gone. (can there be a civic for oligarchy?) the immigrants must move east, across the foreboding spinal mountain range to where explorers say lies a vast and rich farmland drained by a river far larger than the Yangtze. There they might come into conflict with the Iroquois Confederacy, united together against the invaders by word filtering east of strangers that violently drive out all Nations they come across.

I'm thinking that the chinese should colonize the west coast and move east from there. The New Empire of Yingzhou should value emancipation, but there is no reason why it should be Democratic. At the same time china is colonizing the west coast, the Iroquois Confederacy should spawn on the eastern seaboard and begin catching up so that by the time the New Empire of Yingzhou spawns and starts expanding east, the Iroquois Confederacy should be capable of mounting a strong defense. If anything the Iroquois Confederacy should be the one to inherit the USA's love of representation (emerging as it were from a council of tribes). If the Romans ever make it to the Americas, (instead of, for example, fighting over Sub-Saharan Africa as east and west spreads down the coast nearest to it, west Rome should concentrate on South America if only because nobody else seems interested and it's a hop, skip and jump from their provinces along the Gold Coast.

I like that a lot, that's almost exactly what I was thinking. Not sure about the Iroquois though, they probably wouldn't be able to mount a strong defense against any Old World power unless they had already been in contact with one for quite some time.

I still think there should be Roman territories on the East Coast, if only because settlers from Britannia and Gallia (especially Britannia) would be far more likely to want to go there than all the way to Brazil - that's like twice as far. Perhaps colonization would be done on a provincial basis rather than by the central government (or by separate nations! I'm not gonna drop it :p), and Britannia and Gallia would go for North America and places like Hispania and Lusitania for South America.

There were actually many different types of British colonizers. The initial ones in the Virginia colony were the homeless poor and thieves from England. The new colony was used to remove them from their society, and they became indentured servants. The New Englanders are probably who you are referring to. The majority were the Middling sort, and mostly Puritans who went to America for religious freedom and escape from divine fury over old England. However the New Englanders were mostly a merchant class and not peasants. Also the New World was anything but an easier life. The people of Virginia faced smaller life spans and disease, and the New Englanders rebuilt their life without that much use from indentured servants or slaves.

I am reading American Colonies by Alan Taylor so I could not resist putting this out there.

Also the Spanish built Mexico City on the ruins of Tenochtitlan, colonized New Mexico, and colonized Florida. Historically the Japanese possessions were taken by force, not built. This however can obviously change. The Meiji Restoration would not happen in the mid nineteenth century as the new USA would have different values. However it is safe to say that if China became a powerhouse in scientific advances and imperial ideas that they would have forced Japan into becoming a vassal, Sino-Japanese Union (as a pun on the Iberian Union), or forcing them to consider the adoption of said ideas to remain independent.

There were actually many different types of British colonizers. The initial ones in the Virginia colony were the homeless poor and thieves from England. The new colony was used to remove them from their society, and they became indentured servants. The New Englanders are probably who you are referring to. The majority were the Middling sort, and mostly Puritans who went to America for religious freedom and escape from divine fury over old England. However the New Englanders were mostly a merchant class and not peasants. Also the New World was anything but an easier life. The people of Virginia faced smaller life spans and disease, and the New Englanders rebuilt their life without that much use from indentured servants or slaves.
True. I'm sure there'd be many different types of Chinese or Japanese colonists too, quite likely organized on similar lines. (For example, if Japan ends up outlawing Christianity a bit later than OTL, I could see a lot of Japanese Christians emigrating to America.)

I am reading American Colonies by Alan Taylor so I could not resist putting this out there.
I understand the impulse entirely :p

Also the Spanish built Mexico City on the ruins of Tenochtitlan, colonized New Mexico, and colonized Florida. Historically the Japanese possessions were taken by force, not built. This however can obviously change. The Meiji Restoration would not happen in the mid nineteenth century as the new USA would have different values. However it is safe to say that if China became a powerhouse in scientific advances and imperial ideas that they would have forced Japan into becoming a vassal, Sino-Japanese Union (as a pun on the Iberian Union), or forcing them to consider the adoption of said ideas to remain independent.

I'm sure under anyone other than Tokugawa they would adopt those technologies, and if they didn't and Sakoku happened anyway, no one would be able to open them until the Industrial Revolution (starting in the late 1700s there were many failed attempts). Japan would not take becoming a vassal to China well, especially considering that individual daimyou didn't take being a vassal to Japan itself very well.
If China did end up opening them, I would expect the process to be similar to what it was OTL - sign a few unequal treaties at first, then modernize like crap until there's no question of vassalization.

Historically Japanese possessions were taken by force, but of course that started in 1870, not 1600 - pretty much everywhere was full by then, you had to conquer to get anything. I don't know how any restoration would play out if there would be such a thing in the first place - an open Japan gives no obvious reason to get rid of the shougun unless something else major happens. We could end up with a Constitutional Shogunate as modern Japan's form of government ^_^

I have read all these post and i am liking the idea. I have wanted to make a scenairio for GEM (maybe RoM too) but i don't have the imagination or historical knowledge to accurately represent an alternate world. I personally feel that a scenairio set after alot of the events you have described would be better than going through them and i don't feel comfortable using RFC to make it as it is much harder. I was thinking of making around the 1400's, or whenever Japan or China settled/conquered their first city in the americas to get them to stay over there as this would be hard without settlermaps and spawns.

would some of you be willing to help me with city placement/civs/civ areas/unit amounts and other starting details so that i could build it with more accuracy? if you would then i will set up a thread in GEM forums where we can discuss.

I can help with most of that information.

awesome, i am going to begin a thread in GEM, i encourage as many of you as possible to come and help me with making this as i don't think you have enough people to make a RFC mod but a scenairio is much easier, and you wouldnt want all this talking to go to waste.
No More Attilla, A new World (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=8436781#post8436781)