So my attempt to make a later start sort of snowballed and I am now pleased to announce a new project I have decided to undertake. RFI (Rhyes and Fall of Imperialism).

The plan would be a new calendar, modified tech tree and altered Civs, but on the old map. This would thus be a much easier project than RFC:E was as most of the work is already done.

I figured we could have 3 starts to make most use out of the later start system that BTS allows. One at the begging of the Colonial Era with Spain and Portugal just set out to colonise, one later on when the other European powers join the race and another after most land has been gathered to provide a launch to the modern era.

Someone suggested in the old thread that 1450 might be a better start than 1500 as the Iberian nations wouldn't have colonies so that makes the first start quite an easy one.

I think based on rather limited research that 1660 would be another good start date based mostly on this picture (http://i26.tinypic.com/1el5w5.jpg). It shows the Iberian Civs as already established but the other Europeans seem to have just started their Colonial Empires. The situation in India seems particularly interesting as any one of the four Civs with cities there could end up acquiring it.

The final start should be in the late 19th Century shortly before the Crimean War. This would give the feel of 3 potential superpowers along with the option of playing a definite underdog. Also, all the Civs would be available from the start, here allowing people who want to play as later Civs like Germany to not have to wait.

I would also like to mention the 'Ex-Colonies Civs' which I thought would start off as vassals of whoever owned the most cities in their flip zone when they appeared.

So in terms of making it I figured that I would do so and learn how to code to do it, however as this would be my first big venture I would really appreciate it if an experienced coder would agree to help me by explaining things the tutorials don't, and checking stuff to see whats wrong. Also, as much as I am interested in history I would not say that this period covers my field of expertise and as such would like research experts and busy bodies to post on this thread about historical innaccuracies, gameplay tips, things they want to see and any other thoughts remotely related to the topic at hand. In particular, when planning the cities for the 17th century start (see attached picture) I came at a loss on what cities would be best for Russia and the Far East. Tips on that and corrected placement for other Civs would be useful.

On a final note with this thread comes a poll asking about what Civs you think should be in the game. I didn't include obvious ones (like Russia or France), so please vote for each of the Civs in the list you would like to see in the mod, but bear in mind that each Civ comes with a price (stability, turn times, available colonising space and hard work putting them into the mod).

Thanks for reading, I know it's a long post.

EDIT;
Below are the final list of civs. Please help us develope them on here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=332765), or discuss more general aspects of the mod on this thread.
China (Ming)
Spain
France
Britain
Netherlands
Russia
Portugal
Turkey
Austria
Persia - 1500
Mexico - 1521, 1821
Peru - 1542, 1824
Brazil - 1549, 1822
Japan - 1603
Sweden - 1611
China (Qing) - 1644
USA - 1776
Italy - 1814
Australia - 1856, 1986
India - 1858,, 1947
Canada - 1867, 1931
Germany - 1868
----------
Natives
Independents 1
Independents 2
China Rebels
CSA
Aztec (needed for conquistador event)
Inca (needed for conquistador event)

Reserved.

I think a new feature should be introduced: Trading posts. These will be built from settlers just like cities, except they can't grow and can't expand culturally. All they do is allow you to build improvements over the resources in their little cultural zone (or whatever it's called, the opposite of BFC) They should be able to work 1 tile or 2, but no specialists, and they shouldn't count in stability issues and definetly not in the research penalties (so civs will actually gain something from building them).
Next idea: Protestianism instead of Judaism. I think including Protestianism in the historically-protestant nations (Sweden, England, Netherlands, Germany) will make the mod a little bit "spicier" if you know what I mean :).
Final suggestion for this post: Change special resources like spices, bananas, wine, to be continental-specific. That is, spices in the Americas is not the same as spices in India, they should have the same bonuses but be "different", so having one of both is better than having two from only one type, except if you trade one of those ofc.
BTW Austria should definetly be in, if not what's stopping the Ottomans from expanding into Germany?

About your idea of trading posts, how would this idea suit you?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=300786
However, because the colonial and Imperial eras will have more turns in them with the changed calendar I am not sure it is necessary to include this idea...

Also your right, I think the religions should be tweaked, Probably Orthodoxy as well as the other two...

Not sure about continental versions of resources though, I'll have to wait and see if other people like the idea.

Yes that could indeed work.

I am not sure how important this idea is because of the extended time frame Civs have to colonise, I think they would have time to colonise everywhere they want with cities.

Also, I agree with your ideas of religions and would go one step further suggesting we add Orthodoxy to the game as well.

Finally, about Austria and Central Europe, what do people think of this guys idea (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8388919&postcount=45) to have the HRE, Prussia and Austria?

Still, it could turn all those 1-tile islands into places you can settle without damaging your technology and stability.
If your mod starts at about 1450, with a focus on all the years from then until ~2000, it seems to me like there's some good 400 years to settle all over the world.
BTW, what do you think about the different resources for each continent?

For reference, the original civs are:
Egypt, India, China, Babylonia, Greece, Persia, Carthage, Rome, Japan, Ethiopia, Maya, Vikings, Arabia, Khmer, Spain, France, England, Germany, Russia, Netherlands, Mali, Portugal, Inca, Mongolia, Aztecs, Turkey, America

Here's a list of civs converted into their significant colonial-era analogues. I've left question marks where there is any doubt about the civ's importance (i.e. it was either never revived or it is effectively Independent):
Egypt, India, China, ?????, ?????, Persia, ?????, Italy, Japan, ?????, ?????, Sweden, ?????, ?????, Spain, France, England, Austria, Russia, Netherlands, ?????, Portugal, Peru, ?????, Mexico, Turkey, America

That's 9 gaps. Of the 18 poll options, I've taken the liberty to include 7. So the poll will only have to exclude a small number of those civs. In fact, you may want to think about others that you could include to replace civs which by the 1600s had declined into unimportance (e.g. Mongolia). Also, you have the Celts/Byzantines slot to play around with.

Proposed religions:
Protestantism, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Islam, Chinese Traditional, Hinduism, Buddhism
If necessary, of course, you can choose a number different from 7.

I think that most of your proposed ex-colony civs should be in, because this really is what's missing from RFC in my opinion: decolonization. That way, starting in 1775 with the Americans until ~1950 with India and Indonesia, you would have plenty of spawning new civs taking over cities from those big Colonial Empires.

Also, perhaps those ex-colonies should receive very little units at their spawn, with one or no settler, so that the shape of their country really is dependant on former colonization. If nobody cared about South Africa before 1910, then South Africa shouldn't spawn at all. I realize though that this would create problems when the non-spawning civ is human (perhaps AI and human starting units should be different), and it would mean that playing as them relies heavily on luck.

As for other civs, I'm pretty sure Khmer and Mali should be left out, because 1) their most important periods are gone in 1500 and 2) they would forbid access to nice colonial spots in Western Africa and Indochina (especially the latter, it's almost never colonized in RFC because of the oversized Khmer Empire).

I look forward the day modern Iran and Italy are playable! If any African civ is included, it should be Ethiopia as it was the only country to remain independant during the Scramble for Africa, except for a small Italian occupation period (Italian UHV?).

If you put Canada in, you should include Australia as well, so that for once there is a player in Oceania. None of these country are absolutely necessary though, even if I'd like to see my homeland included. :p

Finally... I don't know about central Europe anymore. Austria, Germany, Prussia, HRE... it's overly complicated. I'd like to see, however, a German power capable of building a colonial empire.

This looks good, definitely looking forward to it. I really like the decolonization idea, and if it works out well here I'd like to see it in the full version of RFC.

I would hope that for earlier starting points (say before 1600) it would also be possible to colonize the new world as Japan and China, and maybe write the AI so once every few games one of them manages to do it as the AI.

1450, 1660 (or maybe just 1650 for roundness' sake) and 1850 sound like good start dates.

I like Panopticon's propsed religions, as well as Steb's ex-colony starting units suggestion, and the inclusion of Australia if Canada is added. I also second the idea of a HRE that becomes Austria and a Prussia that becomes Germany. May I also suggest historical civil wars, if it's possible? For example: Around 1860, all cities south of Washington that America controlls will become barabrians (or a minor civ) to simulate the American Civil War, ect. I think it would be a good idea, because it will hinder a civ and make it harder to achieve it's UHV's because it has to contend with 'rebellious factions' in its own civlization. Just throwing in my two cents.

Thanks for the feedback guys. :)

@BurnEmDown - I am not sure about your resource idea as I don't know what names the different types of spices etc... would have and what the effect of so many new resources would be, however it might grow on me. Also I like the colony idea and might put it in depending on what the public reaction to it is, if I have the ability to code it and whether I can find suitable graphics.

@Panopticon - I am not convinced that I should try to fill all of the available slots as fewer civs would run faster, I do like your religious list though, but am wondering if the is a better name for the 'Chinese Traditional'.

@Steb - I too like the idea of colonial civs representing decolinisation, but I think that they should start of earlier than their 'independence date' and start of as vassals to the dominant power in the region. They could later stop being vassals as their declaration of independence. I am also thinking about removing the units converting from the old team to the new if they get declared war on straight away, I have never liked this mechanic and think its absence might make playing as colonial civs more of a challenge.

@T_F - I am not sure about China and Japan being able to colonise, throughout the colonial period China and Japan were not very strong compared to the European countries, also European countries had a motive for exploring new lands, none one else did (otherwise China could have colonised the New World a long time before we did). I might give way to public oppinion though if this is something most people want to see.

@Lean - I am not sure about having civil wars and stuff coded in that way as it would make the game too static and predictable.

@Everyone - Going to start working out the Tech Tree and Units now. Will check up again later.

@T_F - I am not sure about China and Japan being able to colonise, throughout the colonial period China and Japan were not very strong compared to the European countries, also European countries had a motive for exploring new lands, none one else did (otherwise China could have colonised the New World a long time before we did). I might give way to public oppinion though if this is something most people want to see.

I think with a couple of historical modifications each is plausible - if the Chinese treasure fleets in the 1400s hadn't stopped, they might have gone so far; and I know Toyotomi Hideyoshi had quite a lot of colonial ambition in Asia, and an extension of his policies could have led to Japanese colonies in America. True, both were certainly weak after 1600 (a 1650 start would leave it pretty much impossible), but China was certainly strong during the 1400s (and the Ming still managed to make effective use of Western cannons and tactics in the early 1600s), and Japan was very receptive to Western technology up until Tokugawa took over in 1600.

I think perhaps Neo-Confucianism is a good name for the Chinese religion. It's a bit difficult to group Neo-Confucianism and Daoism together, but IIRC I don't think Daoism was particularly influential at this point in time.

I agree that fewer civs would be better. My opinion is that, of the poll options that I didn't include, only some should make it. Poland won't fit, Denmark is less important than Sweden, Khmer, Ethiopia Mali are past their prime, the Zulu had too brief a period of historic importance, the Native Americans weren't settled in significant numbers, and Indonesia would be unlikely to have a significant presence, especially if it is born at around the historic time.

I would include Canada and Brazil as the remaining candidates from the list. South Africa is iffy - I am torn between it and a Gran Colombia-style empire in northern South America. I would also include Australia and a German state like Prussia. By leaving the others blank, including the Celts slot, you make a net loss of five civs, which may be useful in large games.

The two very important mechanisms you will need to design are:
1. Colonisation - in a game about the imperial era, this must be implemented better than in standard RFC.
2. De-Colonisation - perhaps the post-colonial states should not be tied to appearing at a certain fixed spawn date. At least, when they are being played by the AI, they should spawn like a mixture of a new civ and a reincarnated old civ from standard RFC. Perhaps a "latest spawn date", but also the chance to spawn earlier, given the right conditions. A period of vassalage to the motherland should also be part of that.

Well I was just thinking you could have a resource called "Indian Spices" which will be in India, Persia and the Khmer area, a resource called "American Spices" that would be near the Aztec lands, in Cuba, and in Brazil. Then there would be "Asian Spices" that would appear in China and the Islands around Australia.
Basically this will be the same for each appropriate resource (things like Wheat, Iron, Gold, could be the same in all the world).

Just to know: Which civs are considered as 'must be'?
BTW: Voted for Austria (good expansion at Balkans, counterweight to Ottomans), India (at least at starts 1 and 2, ressurection possible to 3) and Persia (another Ottoman rival, tho only at starts 2 and 3)

Just to know: Which civs are considered as 'must be'?
BTW: Voted for Austria (good expansion at Balkans, counterweight to Ottomans), India (at least at starts 1 and 2, ressurection possible to 3) and Persia (another Ottoman rival, tho only at starts 2 and 3)

I agree with them. I also voted for Italy (spawning after 1850) and a North American Indian civ (Sioux, spawning after 1700 with horses?).

@Panopticon - For Colonization, have a look at the link further up about building colonies instead of cities. Also I think something needs to be added to encourage the collection of resources. Maybe just changing the corps to appear earlier, or haveing multiple 'Trading Company' wonders giving extra benefits for collecting resources, I am not sure.

About decolinisation, I quite like your ideas and if possible that is exactly what I would like to put in. Like for example Brazil would spawn between Year X and Year Y depending on the stability of the dominant power in the region. However this may not prove possible and if it is not then I might just give them a fixed date. However they will still in both situations begin as a vassal of whichever power owns the region.

@micbic - The civs considered essential and not included in the list are: Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, HRE/Prussia/Germany, Russia, Ottomans, China, Japan and the USA.

I think Islam needs to be split up into Sunni and Shi'ite - To make sure Persia/Iran and the Ottomans aren't friends...

Carthage = Morocco should you choose to have it. Though it isn't a pole option. I hear the ended the Songhai empire though which could be interesting... ;)

On trading posts - why not use Corporations ?

I am gone on vacation for two days and this thing exploded! (relatively)
Anyway, I have a couple points after reading all this --- no specific order

-Multiple religions should not be an issue considering Johny Smith's Rapture mod, but we should not go crazy. I think there should be two Christian religions because I don't think the Catholics and Orthodothics (sp?) had major issues in the 1500s (not too sure).

-The Germanic nations should include:
+HRE (non playable --- counterpart to RFCE's papal states)
+Germany --- Prussia was indeed a major civilizations, but they had little area. They did not even have the chance to colonize, with the exception of a failed attempt at Venezuela. I think the German Unification is more appropriate as a starting date.
+Austria --- (obvious)

- @dagrigg --- I think Morocco would be a more appropriate UHV area (German control by 1911). It would have 2 cities most, right?... If it was a civ

-There should be 3 South American countries IMO: Peru (Inca), Argentina, and Brazil. That would prevent overcrowding and allow more choices for civs.

- @Lean - I think independents should be spawned like this: Certain civs should get a scripted 'random' event, saying citizens demand Emancipation (America), State Property (Russia/China), etc. Yes would cause a string of independents to spring up, no would cause unhappiness in some cities, but delay the problem.

I'll have more eventually...

The Islam split might be interesting, as your right them and the turks shouldn't be friends. Morocco seemed to small I didn't think anyone would vote for it. About corporations I am thinking about making them available earlier as well, am not sure what to do about it though.

Also, I am wondering what order to do everything. I thought changing the Civs, the calendar and removing all the current 'events' (like making resources and barbs appear in set years) first, and then after that adding the other easier stuff (like Religions, new Techs and units etc..) and then the harder stuff (like flexible spawning for the colonial civs and the colonies). SDK work would probably be last (like the hidden modifiers). Does this seam the best way to proceed, just steadily bastardising the current version of RFC? It seams better to me than starting from scratch...

I am gone on vacation for two days and this thing exploded! (relatively)
Anyway, I have a couple points after reading all this --- no specific order

-Multiple religions should not be an issue considering Johny Smith's Rapture mod, but we should not go crazy. I think there should be two Christian religions because I don't think the Catholics and Orthodothics (sp?) had major issues in the 1500s (not too sure).

-The Germanic nations should include:
+HRE (non playable --- counterpart to RFCE's papal states)
+Germany --- Prussia was indeed a major civilizations, but they had little area. They did not even have the chance to colonize, with the exception of a failed attempt at Venezuela. I think the German Unification is more appropriate as a starting date.
+Austria --- (obvious)

- @dagrigg --- I think Morocco would be a more appropriate UHV area (German control by 1911). It would have 2 cities most, right?... If it was a civ

-There should be 3 South American countries IMO: Peru (Inca), Argentina, and Brazil. That would prevent overcrowding and allow more choices for civs.

- @Lean - I think independents should be spawned like this: Certain civs should get a scripted 'random' event, saying citizens demand Emancipation (America), State Property (Russia/China), etc. Yes would cause a string of independents to spring up, no would cause unhappiness in some cities, but delay the problem.

I'll have more eventually...

Well, welcome back then. Now, as far as the Catholic/Othordox dispute, no, I'm almost positive that they didn't have any disputes in 1500. However, that would Leave Russia and much of the Baltics without their approperate religion.

As for the German Nations, I'm going to have to agree with you (Austria would spawn when, 1805 then, right?) and Germany in 1871 (or 1870). I also think that Germany may need a 20th centurary leader (Like Adolf Hitler, or Konrad Adeauer). For Austria, I'd say start off with Francis I and then go to Franz Josef, no other leaders required.

Nothing really to say about Morroco.

I agree with you on the South American situation, thoes three civs would deffinatly be enough will still allowing room for further colonization.

And yes, I like what you've done to my idea! It's actually simple, and perfect. Why didn't I think of it?

I too like the idea of colonial civs representing decolinisation, but I think that they should start of earlier than their 'independence date' and start of as vassals to the dominant power in the region. They could later stop being vassals as their declaration of independence.

The thing is, all those colonial countries did not get their independance the same way. For example, Canada was, from 1763 to 1867, an integral part of the British Empire, that is, in game, a British territory with British cities. In 1867, it became an "independant" country, the Dominion of Canada, but its foreign policy was controlled by London; in Civ this would be a vassal. Only in 1931, with the statute of Westminster, did it become fully independant. So Canada, to be historical in the mod, should spawn in 1867 as a vassal. Other countries, like the United States, should not, because it would not make any sense. I understand that they could start sometime earlier in the 1700s as a vassal and be forced to war against the UK in 1775, but then how would you choose the earlier date? It would seem arbitrary, as the US vassal to the UK never existed.

Hmmm it seems my last paragraph is not clear and I'm not sure anymore what I meant. :p Oh well. I have a concern though: how would the ex-colony vassal renounce to the protection of its master? It doesn't happen often in the normal game, and I wouldn't want half the world to stay vassalized to the other half for all of the game.

Actually, as my post is evolutive and sees new ideas be built on those I have just wrote, I think we have to evaluate what are the ways of dealing with independance.
1- War. The colonial power wants to keep its colonies which don't want to even think about staying a part of the empire. Diplomacy has failed and whomever wins keep the territory. (USA)
2- Diplomatic independance. Both parties agree on something and the colony becomes a new, independant country right away with few conflicts. (India, Brazil?)
3- Home rule. The colony gets to self-govern but is still under the authority of its master. Read: vassals. (Dominions)

Perhaps the colonial empire and the newborn colony should be given a choice at the spawn as to how to deal with the new civ. Or let's say at some point Britain gets this message: "There is a strong nationalist feeling in your North American colonies. They have asked to be granted home rule. What do you want to do?" "a) Let them become our vassal." "b) No, they shall stay within our Empire." If you answer No, you get to keep your good cities, but then there is a significant chance that later you get a Declaration of Independance message, and you need to choose between agreeing or declaring war. If you answered Yes and got a vassal, they should have a good chance to become fully independant eventually (to represent gradual independance of Australia, Canada, etc.)

That sounds good, but very hard though. But chances of that event should increase if the master civilization is dealing with a war with their neighbor (the way it was explained to me in Global was that the Nap Wars tied up Spain's priorities and allowed the SA colonies to govern themselves. Then after getting a taste of independence, they fought for it.)

How about this as the calender:
1450 - 1850 = 2 years per turn (200 turns)
1850 - 2050 = 1 year per turn (200 turns)

This gives 400 turns (without going past the end date) and a reasonably equal distribution to years, allowing you to focus as much on an early era as a late one.

That sounds good, very good, in my own opinion. I still have a question: Is Othordoxy going to be added, as some have suggested? I think it should be, because then what would happen to Russia? And, in theory, it could dsunite Austria, religiously.

@Steb - Your right about the colonial civs, I was oversimplyfing it, maybe each colony could be dealt on a civ by civ basis?

However a fluid none set in stone system like you suggest would be much harder to pull off given my limited modding skills.

I like the system you describe here:
Perhaps the colonial empire and the newborn colony should be given a choice at the spawn as to how to deal with the new civ. Or let's say at some point Britain gets this message: "There is a strong nationalist feeling in your North American colonies. They have asked to be granted home rule. What do you want to do?" "a) Let them become our vassal." "b) No, they shall stay within our Empire." If you answer No, you get to keep your good cities, but then there is a significant chance that later you get a Declaration of Independance message, and you need to choose between agreeing or declaring war. If you answered Yes and got a vassal, they should have a good chance to become fully independant eventually (to represent gradual independance of Australia, Canada, etc.)

So a civ who controls the area of a colony gets a message after a while for the civ asking for home rule.

Yes = Vassal, No = Keep the cities.

Both options would cause another option later on, where if you said yes your vassal would ask for independence with a choice of giving it or war and if you said no then the civ would emerge at some point and you would have the choice of letting it go or declaring war?

If this is the choice then I think allowing the vassal should delay the eventual independence a lot longer than direct rule, as nationalistic elements would be lessened by their faux-independence.

Secondly these would probably in an ideal world be set off by low stability, economic failure or protracted wars, however this would be much more complicated and a series of set dates for each event would be much easier to code.

So for your canadian example. They could offer to be a vassal at 1867. If allowed they will ask for independence in 1931. If they were not allowed semi-autonomy then they would be likely to rebel at some date in between those two. (say around 1900). For the human player we could then still have them starting to play at a fixed date as we could just force the AI to accept the homerule if its the human player.

On another note, I think the option of reinstating civs you have conquered should be considered, at this era of history countries often redrew the maps after wining a war, partitioning land and creating client states. I think that forcing the resurrection of a civ as a vassal is a good way to show this. This civ would also have the potential to gain independence later.

EDIT: @Lean, I have every intention of having Orthodoxy in the mod. Catholic Russia would be just too inaccurate.

Both options would cause another option later on, where if you said yes your vassal would ask for independence with a choice of giving it or war and if you said no then the civ would emerge at some point and you would have the choice of letting it go or declaring war?

If this is the choice then I think allowing the vassal should delay the eventual independence a lot longer than direct rule, as nationalistic elements would be lessened by their faux-independence.

Exactly.

Secondly these would probably in an ideal world be set off by low stability, economic failure or protracted wars, however this would be much more complicated and a series of set dates for each event would be much easier to code.

I personnally have nothing against set dates. There'll have to be some thinking about the human player though. I think they would have to spawn at their earliest date (home rule date). Then either their political situation is random (vassal, war, peace) or decided by the civ (America is at war, Canada is vassal, etc.).

I realize that this may be hard to do. However, I am guessing (since I'm a total modding noob) that some of the code concerning the resurrection of civs within your borders could be recycled. Perhaps.

I certainly hope some can be reused. Although I am willing to learn python to pull this off I have yet to have an offer of help by a more experienced codder. Until I get that I can see the Python section of the C&C area being full of posts by me asking about a variety of petty problem. ;)

Also, I think that having the starting situation preset for the human player might work best.

Well, I'm kind of sorry I can't help to mod. I'd sure like to be able to code but I certainly don't have time or will to learn...

By the way, I haven't even said something like that, so: Great idea! :goodjob: The whole RFI thing seems very promising. Good luck with your work! (And I'd surely like to help a little sometime!)

That's ok your helping the project a lot just by giving feedback and ideas, two things I am going to need a lot off. :)

What about this as the Civ list:

Normal Civs:
Britain
France
Spain
Portugal
Netherlands
Russia
Turks
Persia
China
Japan
Germany
Austria
Italy
Sweden/Denmark (not sure which)

Colonial Civs:
Canada
USA
Mexico
Peru
Brazil
india
Australia

This, I think, covers most areas and historical or potential powers, as well as including every country on the list that got over half of the voters.

This adds up to 21 Civs, out of a maximum 30. 3 are taken up by Independents and Natives. This leaves room for 6 minor civs if we want them.

For these I would vote for Denmark, to be a rival to Sweden, making its life dificult and chances of success small, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the HRE, as a way of keeping central Europe out of the hands of its neighbors before Germany and Austria appear.

I also thought that one of them could be the Confederate States of America. Instead of spawning it at a set time I thought it would fun to have it appear if the USA adopts Emancipation.

That's ok your helping the project a lot just by giving feedback and ideas, two things I am going to need a lot off. :)

What about this as the Civ list:

Normal Civs:
Britain
France
Spain
Portugal
Netherlands
Russia
Turks
Persia
China
Japan
Germany
Austria
Italy
Sweden/Denmark (not sure which)

Colonial Civs:
Canada
USA
Mexico
Peru
Brazil
india
Australia

This, I think, covers most areas and historical or potential powers, as well as including every country on the list that got over half of the voters.

This adds up to 21 Civs, out of a maximum 30. 3 are taken up by Independents and Natives. This leaves room for 6 minor civs if we want them.

For these I would vote for Denmark, to be a rival to Sweden, making its life dificult and chances of success small, and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the HRE, as a way of keeping central Europe out of the hands of its neighbors before Germany and Austria appear.

I also thought that one of them could be the Confederate States of America. Instead of spawning it at a set time I thought it would fun to have it appear if the USA adopts Emancipation.

I second all four of your suggestions (especially the CSA one) But, just one question, how exactly would a CSA civ work? Would all cities South of Washington just flip to the new civ, or what? Either way, I like it a lot!

Would it not be more historical if for America the scripted event said that the citizens demand slavery? Then if the human player refuses the division would occur.

@Lean - Basically yeah, I thought they would just flip everything below Washington and start with all the techs the USA has but with different civics (including nationalism for drafting), I also think that they might have to start with a bit of an army to stop the USA player from just moving its army out of those cities, but we'll just have to see how it balances out.

@Zagoroth - Historically it was caused by the government moving away from slavery as apposed to it already being away from slavery and the south wanting to introduce it. So, I don't think it would be personally.

The South wanted to secede because the North stopped the expansion of slavery. Since you act as the leader in Civilization, turning down slavery is about the same as agreeing to emancipation. However the North started with not wanting slavery in the North, quite a few people still wanted slavery in the South because the South was very profitable. It was only once the Civil War actually started that the North wanted to abolish slavery all together.

Thus the message would say that the Southern States wish to spread slavery through the whole country and if you decline, they will secede.

But slavery was still a common practice, and the United States already had it as their civic in reality, so demanding slavery is impossible if it is already the nations civic, no?

Lean has got it right.

I guess I was not thinking about it in terms of civilization, ironically. I guess your way is the closest civilization could come to historical accuracy.

Well, you could be right. Figure it this way: You switch to Emancipation. One turn later, you get a notice saying something along the lines of "The Southern States demand a return to the age long institution of Slavery" Should you accept, no CSA, but all cities north of Washington get -3 happiness, while cities south of Washington get +2 happiness, or something along thoes lines.

We could rig those cent. European cities to be independents but v. difficult to take right ? saves on having HRE and Poland...(since if in the game they're destined to go down...maybe not so much Poland but certainly HRE)

Denmark is a good point - But would Sweden need containing if Denmark weren't in ?

I think Japan should have a spawn date similar to the rise of Tokugawa. Gives you the oppurtunity for an early military UHV (Unite Japan by say 1650). Also means Samarai would actually help you out...

The other thing in East Asia I'd be looking for is how best to represent the transition from Ming to Qing dynasties...

I really like the idea of crowding North America (as bad as that may sound). America should have manifest destiny by whenever as atleast one UHV condition (Which is a good reason for me to have Sioux/Apache/combination) and probably to destory CSA by whenever (Good reason to have CSA) as another condition. For a highly militaristic combination you could also have to deny Germany all French territory which could create a world war scenario...

Also voted for Ethiopia - to represent a real defensive challenge - to deny Italy Africa. Ofcourse you have the same logic with those native americans and zulu...well atleast one civ should be really up against it for those looking for that kind of game...

Well, for CSA UHV's, they could be:

1. Controll Cuba, Sonora and Chichulia(sp?) by 1880 or 1900
2. Defeat the USA in atleast 2 wars
3. Survive past 1944

For the USA:

1. Controll all of the mainland USA by 1850
2. Defeate the CSa in atleast 1 war
3. Conqueror the SCA by 1944

I thought CSA could be a minor civ, as I thought americans would want to fight it rather than play as it.

Same with poland and HRE. Its ok if they are doomed to die as they are unplayable.

Lastly what would people think about a 'Chinese rebels' minor civ, to provide china with some opposition. Or even two major china civs?

Well you know I think it's fantastic x]

Looks like we have four clear winners.

Well, the CSA would be a fun Civ to play as, and they wouldaverage a war with the US every 20 years or so (I'm going by Harry Turtledove's Southern Victory timeline) In my opinion, the USA is a powerhouse without another nation to balance it (Canada is iffy) So I suggest a playable CSA. I like you China ideas also.

While the CSA would be fun to play as, it would slow down the game too much to be worth it. AND it's history was too short to put in the game. I'm definitely against it.

As a minor civ I think it might be good, and should be at permanent war with America. It should be fairly weak to ensure America's conquering of it, as well as strong enough to temporarily slow/stop/reverse the growth of America.

Agreed, it should (in my opinion) be there as a speed bump in Americas growth rather than a serious threat and possible replacement.

Sorry, I posted a quick post in the old thread before I realized it moved here, like an idiot. Some points on that map:

Remove Islamabad. It wasn't built until the 1960's (Don't know an exact date, but you get the picture). Also, and this admittedly minor, I don't think Kabul was ever "Khabul".
Put Islam in Delhi. 1500 is the age of the Mughals remember (why not start India with Kabul and Delhi to represent them, btw? They can conquer the independents.) Regardless, Delhi was ruled by Persianized Muslim Turks since around 1200 anyways.

The Mughal Empire did not control India until 1526. At 1450 C.E. The Delhi Sultanate was the ruling state in India.

When people vote for India, do they want the Mughal Empire or the British Raj?

Well when I voted for India, I was voting for the British Raj. Although Zaggoth is right, the Delhi Sultanate still ruled India in 1500 AD.

I was voting for the Mughal Empire, the Delhi Sultanate represented by independents/minor civ. Why not just have the Mughal Empire be prone to vassalization to Britain? Then, when that happens, they change their name to the British Raj.

However, whatever works best, I suppose. Again, I think the player should be able to be a vassal, for more realistic starts.

The vast majority of the Colonial civs will start the human player as a vassal of an imperial power.

If that is the case the Mudhal Empire should be independents and should all flip to the British Raj when it spawns. I think there should be at least one coastal city that is under direct British control.

At what point should the be a British coastal city? During the reign of the British Raj?

I was just researching to find a good coastal city when I saw that British rule began as Company Raj, which was India under the control of the English East India Company. This begin in 1757 and til 1858 when the British Raj was established. Having the human player start as the Company Raj might make for a more fun game, and still keeping historically accurate.

The coastal city, which should be under British control, is Calcutta. While historically not a coastal city on the ocean, on Rhye's map it would be. Also Calcutta was the capital of the Company Raj and part of the British Raj. Besides that I believe that both England and France should be more willing to build cities there and fight in the 17th century. How about including a function in the mod which makes it so the spawning colony/civ is a vassal to the Europian country with the most cities in it? I am not a modder though so while it is easy to suggest things I have no idea if it is easy or possible.

That'd be cool Zagorath! :cool: Couldn't it be in the same way America's done in RAND or maybe RFC? I suppose I can't say, I, like you, have no modding experience. Even trying to download mods I get confused. :lol:

I also thought it was if I do say so myself :). Again it is easy to come up with crazy mod ideas when you don't have to do it yourself. I just think this helps create the atmosphere, and necessity, for the European powers to colonize the correct places. Therefor when the colony/civ spawns it would be theirs. This is also even historical since it requires the human player to create initial cities before the creation of the colonial government.

The Mughal Empire did not control India until 1526. At 1450 C.E. The Delhi Sultanate was the ruling state in India.

Yeah I know it wasn't EXACTLY 1500, but for CivIV purposes 1500 and 1526 are close enough aren't they?
By 1526, Babur controlled Kabul. What one could do is have a Mughal India start the game controlling Kabul, but with shaky stability if it doesn't capture Delhi soon, since India is its core territory.

I like the idea of having the East India Company as a playable Civ emerging in the 18th century in Calcutta.

The way I thought India was going to work...

Mughal Empire which disintegrates with the appearence of europe. Then later in the game India re-spawns as modern India. The negative stability points need to come from somewhere though...

As that empire goes into civil war the Europeans get colonising. Note - Leave Calcutta open for colonising (ie European city) so whoever gets there first will usually get India (or have as independent and flip when first European sights it). Instead of joining the independents revolting cities join a European power.

I think its a choice between the Raj or Mughals though. Unless you want 2 Indian civs...I'd prefer 2 Chinese civs than 2 Indian civs....I'd also prefer more than 34 total civs (or whatever the limit is) :P

Looking more into CSA...yea too short. If America needs slowing down I think its all up to the native americans now :P It is interesting whether to put new civs in based on which current ones would be too strong or as the "next biggest power" method...

Can you split India into Mughal with its core in the north, with the Maratha confederacy spawning around 1674 in the south west? Britain should own or have as an objective Calcutta

How about this for the final list of civs?

China (Ming)
Spain
France
Britain
Netherlands
Russia
Portugal
Turkey
Austria
Persia - 1500
Mexico - 1521, 1821
Peru - 1542, 1824
Brazil - 1549, 1822
Japan - 1603
Sweden - 1611
China (Qing) - 1644
USA - 1776
Italy - 1814
Australia - 1856, 1986
India - 1858,, 1947
Canada - 1867, 1931
Germany - 1868
----------
Natives
Independents 1
Independents 2
China Rebels
CSA
Aztec (needed for conquistador event)
Inca (needed for conquistador event)

In case anyone hasn't read the rest of the thread, the reason most Colonial civs have two is that one is when they gained semi-autonomy (and will emerge as a vassal) the second is when they achieved independence.

I need to know the spawn dates of the Central and South American colonies and for a couple of people to check the list for mistakes. Its just I need the final list ready (and in order) so I can start adding them to the game, without having to redo anything later.

EDIT: I have dates to the latin american civs. These may be temporary and are in italics.

Technically, the Viceroyalties of New Spain and Peru would be what is most similar to vassals, but they were established in 1519 and 1542, which is rather early and wouldn't let Spain own the territory for very long. This is not an ideal solution, but perhaps the home rule date could match the beginning of the Bourbon reforms (1713), or the establishment of the other Viceroyalties (1717, 1776), as these events changed the political organisation of Spanish America.

For Brazil, I quote Wikipedia:
The way in which such deposits were exploited by the Portuguese Crown and the powerful local elites burdened colonial Brazil with excessive taxation, giving rise to some popular independence movements such as the Tiradentes in 1789; however, the secessionist movements were often dismissed by the colonial authorities.
Thus, 1789 could be used. This is not perfect either, though.

I'm kind of tired so I didn't dare reading the articles thoroughly (too risky I end up spending the whole night on Wikipedia), but here are some links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil#Colonization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viceroyalty_of_Peru

Aside from this, I like the list and I think it can be definitive. :) But why is Austria spawning in 1278? Isn't your mod supposed to start way later than this?

Until either someone with better historical knowledge gives me better dates, or testing shows it to be a disaster I am going to use 1521 for Mexico, 1542 for Peru, this will give Spain two very early vassals as well as letting people play them early on. In the same logic I will use 1549 for Brazil, the year they decided to set up a central government in the colony.

About Austria, your right the game has started, my mistake I will edit the earlier post...

I think that Canada's independence date could be looked at from many aspects. July 1, 1867, made Canada a dominion, which is a self-governing part of the British Empire, best represented by a vassal. Technically, it did not gain independence from Britain until 1982, but by then it was so self-sufficient by then that Britain had almost no power or point in the Canadian government since 1931. So, I think you made a good choice with 1931, but I must ask, will the player have the ability to gain independence before the second date for any vassalized countries? And, a completely different question, will the AI have the ability to gain independence before the second date?

Also, I've got an idea which may or may not be hard to code, but I think it may have been done for RFC a while ago(not sure). Anyways, expanded spawn zones. My main example, as I'm sure you expected, is Canada. Though it "spawned" in 1867, it was not until 1949 that it had full control of Canada, and that is due to Britain's colonies constantly joining Canada. Like in 1871, British Columbia joined, and in 1869 Canada bought Rupert's Land for 300,000 pounds. You get the point. I'm pretty sure this would work with other countries too, but my knowledge of other countries' histories is limited. Luckily, I know more than everyone else in my grade, for sure. :) All thanks to you, O Mighty Rhye!

No Argentina, eh? Shame. They'd've been fun. Thought, most everyone would be fun, but that'd make it too slow. All in all, great list! :goodjob:

Ugh, only one more day free of school... only one more.. :cry:

...but I must ask, will the player have the ability to gain independence before the second date for any vassalized countries? And, a completely different question, will the AI have the ability to gain independence before the second date?

Yes.

Also, I've got an idea which may or may not be hard to code, but I think it may have been done for RFC a while ago(not sure). Anyways, expanded spawn zones. My main example, as I'm sure you expected, is Canada. Though it "spawned" in 1867, it was not until 1949 that it had full control of Canada, and that is due to Britain's colonies constantly joining Canada. Like in 1871, British Columbia joined, and in 1869 Canada bought Rupert's Land for 300,000 pounds. You get the point. I'm pretty sure this would work with other countries too, but my knowledge of other countries' histories is limited. Luckily, I know more than everyone else in my grade, for sure. All thanks to you, O Mighty Rhye!

Sounds interested but its too hard to code and too restrictive. Ideally we would have the option to sell cities but that too would be too hard to code. For the moment I will overlook these inaccuracies and maybe come back to them later on.

For expanded spawn zones do you mean:

1. Adding territory to be flipped at random points(like BC flipping to Canada in 1871)

or

2. Respawn zones being larger than original zones


If it's respawn, I totally agree that they should be larger and IIRC they are in RFC as well. If it's the first, I don't like it. I don't want American Manifest Destiny to be just a random event, I want it to be one of the main focuses of playing as the USA as it was for American politics in the 19th century. If the USA collapses and respawns though, I'm perfect fine with them respawning with most, if not all, of the continental states.

Also, how is the Aztec/Mexico-Inca/Peru problem going to be handled? Are they simply going to have the same spawn zones? Because honestly I think it would be rather interesting to have Aztecs survive every once in a while, though not often by any means.

And how will the CSA be handled? I want them to create considerable problems for the USA for a little while but I don't want it to get to the point where I'm just moving all my units north of Washington in 1858 and crushing the South in 2 turns.

Here is a calendar I just thought of:
1450-1650: 4 years per turn--->50 turns
1650-1850: 2 years per turn--->100 turns
1850-1900: 1 year per turn ---> 50 turns
1900-1990: 6 months per turn--> 180 turns
1990-2020: 3 months per turn--> 120 turns
Total: 500 turns.

Any objections?

I think people are going to complain if the steam age is so short, though I've never had a particular fondness for it >.>

Here is a calendar I just thought of:
1450-1650: 4 years per turn--->50 turns
1650-1850: 2 years per turn--->100 turns
1850-1900: 1 year per turn ---> 50 turns
1900-1990: 6 months per turn--> 180 turns
1990-2020: 3 months per turn--> 120 turns
Total: 500 turns.

Any objections?

Not an objection, but I have already suggested this:

How about this as the calender:
1450 - 1850 = 2 years per turn (200 turns)
1850 - 2050 = 1 year per turn (200 turns)

This gives 400 turns (without going past the end date) and a reasonably equal distribution to years, allowing you to focus as much on an early era as a late one.

The question is which do people prefer?

Well, the basic differences between these two are that:
1) Yours extends more and
2) is more equal, while mine proposal seems to focus more on the modern age. ;)

Second one. Maybe make it a little longer though.

I'm thinking that with an expanded timeline in a later era, will it be necessary to re-work the tech tree and possibly add more units/buildings/wonders/civics? I think it would be wonderful to do so, and even more wonderful to allow every civilization to have another UU and/or UB. I know I shouldn't talk when I'm not going to do any work, but honestly, with the current tech tree it would mean increasing tech prices a huge amount.

Possibilities for new wonders:
-Golden Gate Bridge (must be on the ocean or on a river, doubles road/railway speed OR all land units have 1 more movement points)
-CN Tower (all allied/neutral countries are "friendly" with owner, all enemy countries are pleased with owner)
-Macchu Picchu (acts like a little Incan UP)
-Itaipu Dam (+50% :hammers: in all cities with power)
-Empire State Building (vassals are cheaper, more stable, and more willing to give)
-Potala Palace (all temples give extra 2 :))
-East Opera House (Sydney Opera House, all cities borders "pop", without extra culture)
-The Louvre (+25% :culture:, +25% :wealth:)
-Buckingham Palace (a 4th palace)
-Big Ben (all countries make more equal trades)

That's all I can do for now. This thinking is making me crazy. :crazyeye:

I have no problem with a longer modern era, but I am worried about Spain's ability to both discover conquer the Americas in about 12 turns (1450 to 1500). Also because I want multiple start dates for different periods I see no problem with having a very long calender.

Another options would be to merge them like this, but I am not sure if thats better...
1450-1850: 2 years per turn (200 turns)
1850-1900: 1 year per turn (50 turns)
1900-1990: 6 months per turn (180 turns)
1990-2020: 3 months per turn (120 turns)

EDIT: @ JiimBV

I do plan on adding new techs/wonders/buildings/units and civics. But not yet, I want to get the core behind the game functioning fist.

I personnally don't really like when turns are less than a year (who knows why). So I prefer kairob's one, plus it's more simple to memorize. However, the merged one is fine, expecially if you focus on the modern era (which I don't enjoy as much as the other eras...). I would extend the 1-year-per-turn period, though, 50 turns is short. Perhaps until 1950.

On another note, why is Australia spawning in 1856? I think it's too early. The Commonwealth of Australia (with its own constitution, but similar to a dominion) was formed in 1901.

Second one. Maybe make it a little longer though.

I'm thinking that with an expanded timeline in a later era, will it be necessary to re-work the tech tree and possibly add more units/buildings/wonders/civics? I think it would be wonderful to do so, and even more wonderful to allow every civilization to have another UU and/or UB. I know I shouldn't talk when I'm not going to do any work, but honestly, with the current tech tree it would mean increasing tech prices a huge amount.

I don't like the idea of multiple UU's. It usually starts out well then swells to ridiculous standards IMO.


Possibilities for new wonders:
-Golden Gate Bridge (must be on the ocean or on a river, doubles road/railway speed OR all land units have 1 more movement points)

This is really broken. I'd go for the +1 movement only in your lands though.

-CN Tower (all allied/neutral countries are "friendly" with owner, all enemy countries are pleased with owner)

I don't really see the point of this one. I would never build it because it seems like a waste.

-Macchu Picchu (acts like a little Incan UP)

I like it. You can turn a little crap city into something awesome(like a 1 hill tile city surrounded by mountains on the east and water on the west) with this and Moai Statues. Or I would just use this on Salt Lake City.

-Itaipu Dam (+50% :hammers: in all cities with power)

Really powerful...might be too much.

-Empire State Building (vassals are cheaper, more stable, and more willing to give)

Again, seems pointless. Give it a Topkapi Palace effect and I'd love it.

-Potala Palace (all temples give extra 2 :))

Good stuff.

-East Opera House (Sydney Opera House, all cities borders "pop", without extra culture)

I can see this being great for crap cities like Siberia and nothern Canada.

-The Louvre (+25% :culture:, +25% :wealth:)

Is there nothing like this yet? I like it.

-Buckingham Palace (a 4th palace)

We don't need 4 >.>

-Big Ben (all countries make more equal trades)

I don't see this working out well.

That's all I can do for now. This thinking is making me crazy. :crazyeye:

:crazyeye:

@ Steb - By 1856 New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, and South Australia had their own Government, and as I don't know Australian history that well I thought it would be a good date. It also gives them longer as a British vassal, so they aren't penalised too much for settling the region.

I like the merged one, quite a lot! I'm really really looking foward to this! But I have to agree with Steb, why does Australia start in 1856?

Edit: Looking at your post, it does make some sense, giving them more time as a vassal makes the game more fun, after all...

OK, with Leons vote as well I am starting to look outvoted. 1901 it is...

Well I edited it! I mean, you are the designer, and, while historical accuracy is key, fun is more important some times. If Australians want to play as their civ, let 'em play as long as they can! It's sort of historical, so go for it, if you feel its best!

That was my thinking. I can see this mod drawing players from a lot of countries that are not normally able to play. Incidentally I have an Australian friend, I am going to ask his opinion on the matter...

Good, that should strigten it out. I suppose I can't campagin for an Irish Civ then, can I? :lol:

I still think 1901 would be better. And I think it should spawn after Canada: Australia is much younger. But 1858 is all right, I guess. The thing is, Britain won't hold the territory for very long, if the cities are built about their historical time (Melbourne 1835, Brisbane 1824, Perth 1829 etc. only Sydney is decently early in 1788).

Edit: oops while I was slowly writing you guys discussed a lot about it. :p That's right, ask an Australian.

What about the Irish lads? What about them! :lol:

I don't like the idea of multiple UU's. It usually starts out well then swells to ridiculous standards IMO.

Fair enough.


This is really broken. I'd go for the +1 movement only in your lands though.

Really broken? How'd you mean? And sure, that works. I wasn't too crazy about the idea in the first place, but whatever works with people.[/QUOTE]

I don't really see the point of this one. I would never build it because it seems like a waste.

Yeah, but someone going for a diplomatic victory might..

I like it. You can turn a little crap city into something awesome(like a 1 hill tile city surrounded by mountains on the east and water on the west) with this and Moai Statues. Or I would just use this on Salt Lake City.

That's what I was thinking. Turning a useless Peruvian city into something worthwhile.

Really powerful...might be too much.

Err.. +25% :hammers: in every city on this continent with power? Much less useful for colonial European countries, but huge usefulness for single-continent empires like Russia, China and the U.S.

Again, seems pointless. Give it a Topkapi Palace effect and I'd love it.

That palace in Istanbul? What effect does that have? Err... how 'bout something like.. Vassals are free, and will give you anything you want from them without question (techs, money, cities, etc.)? Makes vassals of European powers worthwhile, rather than draining your economy.

Good stuff.

Thank you.

I can see this being great for crap cities like Siberia and northern Canada.

Thanks again! :)

Is there nothing like this yet? I like it.

:D!!!

We don't need 4 >.>

I know, but I wrote in Buckingham Palace, but couldn't think of anything for it. So I just gave it that.

I don't see this working out well.

How do ya mean? And same as Buckingham Palace, couldn't think of anything for it. :blush:

Well we were still pretty divided in the 1850's...here's a rough timeline how federation happenned

- 1880's at this point there's some very basic ideas, including Australia being composed of Australia, New Zealand and Fiji (But not Western Australia ie Perth)
- 1890's we realise "oh crap its almost the start of the 1900's we should get this thing done before then because its a big and scary event. Fiji already pulled out
- At federation - New Zealand pulls out at the last hour (we no literally but you get the idea) while Western Australia joins in the last second.
- 1920's/30's Western Australia decides to unjoin (This lasted like a month somewhere in that time period...) and become a seperate nation. Make their own flag then the rest of the states look at them as if to say "you look ridiculous, what the hell are you doing" and they get all self-concious and are like "nothing" and decide not to leave the country...

But the point is - Federation only really kicked off in the 1890's. What you could foreseeably do is...
UP - The power of mateship (Australia can ask for more than one city at congresses and other civs are more likely to give them cities)
Then
1899 - Spawn Australia in Canberra (sinice that is the capital of Australia...even though it didn't get founded until later because Melbourne and Sydney were having a hissy fit over which city should be the new capital)
1901 - World congress. (1 turn to try to sure up relations) The Australian civ can ask for however many cities there are on its own continent. (So in theory you could simulate if WA didn't join straight away (though Perth doesn't get founded an awful lot in my experience), Aus/NZ commonwealth etc.). This also means that if Australia isn't wholey British (should be a chance of this happenning, not only Dutch chance but also French (primary threat to British colonisation) and German (Well, I know in my own city of Adelaide there was a signifigant German presence.) chances

From there you play as a vassal of Britain. With the statute of Westminster (Same act that would give Canada and South Africa independence in the game) we were given the oppurtunity to become independent but didn't ratify until during WWII (during WWII we really just switched from UK vassal to US vassal if you like :P)

I'm not going to bother with this quoting mess that I started anymore. I'll just address a few things.

Golden Gate Bridge: Double movement for roads/rails makes it possible to travel ridiculous distances in a single turn. It's just too powerful. The +1 movement is also really powerful if you can use it outside of your own territory because it gives Tanks and Cavalry 3 movement points, enough to move between many cities in Europe in a single turn, and would obsolete the Musketeer completely as any Musketman in the land owning this wonder would be the same as a Musketeer. +1 movement in your own lands is strong, but I don't think it's stronger than a wonder necessarily can be.

CN Tower: I hadn't thought of Diplomatic Victories. I guess it would be rather useful there, but maybe too powerful. I don't think someone going for a diplo victory would be at war with too many civs, which would bump everyone to friendly and create an auto-win.

Itaipu Dam: I was thinking of the US when typing most of my responses. 25% hammers isn't too bad really, it's just that a country like the US has all of it's land on one continent and that's a literal 50% boost to all of their hammers. It's just too strong really, 25% would probably work though it would have to be debated further.

Empire State Building: The Topkapi Palace allows you to build the unique units of your vassals. Most mods include it as a percent chance such that if you are England and have France as a vassal, you can build Musketman and there's x% chance that it will turn into a Musketeer when built. It is a different percent in many mods and I believe in RFC:E it's a 100% chance. I like this and I feel it really makes vassals useful. If you vassalize someone with a really strong UU, you can really benefit from it.

Buckingham Palace: I don't think we should be adding wonders for the sake of adding wonders. If we don't have a really good effect for it, I don't think we should include it. If someone can come up with a good effect, I don't think it would be terrible to include. We could also consider going the way of RFC:E and taking out some wonders that don't fit(Stonehenge, Hanging Gardens, Pyramids, etc) and giving their effects to newer wonders.

Big Ben: I don't think this would be easy to code and just like Buckingham Palace it seems that it's being thrown in for the sake of having it. It needs a much better effect to be considered IMO.

Again, wonders arrn't going to be added until later, the isnt much point discussing them at the moment.

About Australia, we can't make it too complicated, isn't the a simpler method then asking for loads of cities at a congress?

Yeah, I really don't see any reason whatsoever that Australia shouldn't spawn as one nation like everyone else. I'm sure it's not the only example of a country that was originally a loose federation of states at it's creation becoming a unified nation(I'm hinting at the Articles of Confederation here if you're not getting it).

Have them spawn whenever it seems right for them to be relatively unified and maybe just don't include Western Australia in the spawn.

Well, why not? I know they won't be added until later, but we can get this out of the way. I mean, it'll have to be done sooner or later.

But, just one last time, to respond to Mekajiki that the Topakapi Palace sounds amazing. You could have tons of great UUs later on, making it a very powerful wonder. As for the CN Tower, maybe "Friendly" with Defensive Pact Allies, "Pleased" with neutral/open borders, and "Cautious" with enemies. As for the British ones, no idea has struck.

That's it. No more wonder-talk. For now... :shifty: Or until you say we can. :lol:

Try RFC:E if you haven't yet. My first game I played as Germany and at the end of the game I had Austria as a vassal and their UU is the last cavalry unit in the game. Needless to say, I had about 200 years of waiting for my last UHV condition to kick in, so I used their UU to conquer France, Burgundy, and Poland :P

Italy - 1814

so there's going to be a sort of italian resurgence? :D

Unless there is a way slowly give cities to Australia, in other words timed flipping of cities, then all cities should flip to Australia. I say this because it is unrealistic for Australia to have to fight to take all of its cities on the continent. They were all slowly given their right to rule themselves under the British crown.

So in civ terms Australia was vassal of Britain which slowly liberated cities to them to make them a more useful vassal and lose negative stability from them.

Yes, but is there a way to actually have the English Empire do that?

maybe this mod should end in 1970-80 with the decolonization?

If we're going to take it to the 80's, there's no reason not to just finish it off...

Also, I like how it seems it's going to turn into RFC for full game. RFGW for 3000 BC to 600 AD, RFC:E for 500-1800 AD, RoI for 1500-2000 AD.

It's a very cool way for the three specialized time periods to work.

yeah but how to deal with the decolonization?

yeah but how to deal with the decolonization?

The large civs account for most of the decolonisation up to 1950. Africa/Caribbean/SE Asia can be addressed with an amended stability system, in which colonial cities are more likely to declare independence under instability.

One idea: Rather than having a civ just collapse when it's unstable, it should lose all its cities outside a "home area" but keep its domestic cities.

Zulu and South Africa are almost in the same region so they could be representsd by one civ. Pretty much the same with Khmer and Indonesia

True, although at present none of those civs are included.

Small suggestion/comment, adding Austria maybe cool and all but, it stops Germans from becoming a power in the later parts of the game. Then they stay the rest of the game a vassal and seem to do nothing. I've seen it happen when(unluckly for Germany) Russia got the Polish area with one of it's settlers when the Germans settled Berlin, Frankfurt(since it was razed by barbs), and Copenhagen while the Romans had the Austrian area and Northern Greece(not all though). Germany would have then vassalized to me(France), Rome, or Russia(but instead I Restarted and got a more powerful Germany, Rome, and Greece.

Thanks for the heads up, I hope to encourage Germany to expand quickly once it spawns. If it doesn't work then I will consider taking Austria out later, but for now I'm going to keep it.

Question; Should the Netherlands spawn be delayed until 1581?

If they start with a Galleon(or East Indiaman) and a few settlers they sould be fine. They Usually vassalize to France, England, or Germany(rarely). But then again that's the 3000 B.C.E. & 600 A.D. starts.

Hey folks, this mod seems to have sprung up overnight! well anyway, I'm excited about it, the more RFC the better. I've noticed discussion about various German states, and how to best reflect their waxing and waning. An idea that I had was to include several, playable, German states, i.e. Swabia, Bavaria, Prussia and Austria for example. They would have a UN or AP like system for the HRE; by being members they all automatically gain OB and DP agreements with each other, plus maybe some added benefits. There would be elections for Holy Roman Emperor, who would gain powers such as requesting units from the other member states and such. I'm a bit unclear on what powers the emperor would have, but hey, they couldn't agree on that in real life either!

Way too much trouble. At least right now it is. This modmod is still in the stage of finalizing civs and such. Features like the HRE are a little ways off I think.

As for Sweden, it should definitely be in there in the later starts as it was a powerful continental power.

But for Denmark, it needs to be there in the early starts. Denmark was much more active as a colonial power and was in general a more powerful state until the 17th century.

The entire North was unified under a powerful queen, Margaret I, from 1397(ending 1523). It was called the Kalmar Union(Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Greenland, Shetland, Orkneys). Maybe that's a good way to start off the north?

If you are going to have historical events, the "Bloodbath of Stockholm" in 1520 would be a great departure point for Sweden. Here the King of Denmark, Christian II, slaughtered 82 Swedish nobles and set of a fierce secession struggle that ended with Sweden crowning their own king, Gustav Vasa.

Has anything happened with this modmod yet?

I'd love to see Denmark, Sweden, Italy and Austria in Europe. I also think that Zulus and South Africans could somehow be combined. And in the Americas, Argentina would be great because there's a lot of land that Peru and Brazil shouldn't get down there. And Indonesia... sounds interesting as well.

Pity, this modmod had so much potential. If not Kairob somebody else should continue the work on this. Out of all the modmods, this one could have been the best (just look at the timeperiod and the theme)

I like this idea a lot, unfortunatley I'm not the person to be taking this further. I can't program to save my life... but somebody should go through with this.

Pity, this modmod had so much potential. If not Kairob somebody else should continue the work on this. Out of all the modmods, this one could have been the best (just look at the timeperiod and the theme)

Very true, very true. It would have been nice to play this mod. There is the 1500 AD start mod as well, which I would have done, but the modder refused/never replied on a request to update it to the latest version of RFC :(

Very true, very true. It would have been nice to play this mod. There is the 1500 AD start mod as well, which I would have done, but the modder refused/never replied on a request to update it to the latest version of RFC :(

That's only half the truth, and you know that.:nono:So there is no way I can update this mod, other than if I know programming?? If someone has the time (and the ability), could someone please possibly update this for me.

Thanks :)You basically asked all those who are able to do this (edead, Leoroth, Baldyr...) to do the work for you, although they have mods on their own and, i don't know, a real life maybe?
That task would really be a sh*tload of work. It's not like it could be done in 15 minutes...
No one forbid you to try it yourself. There are tons of tutorials, whether it's python or SDK, that helps oneself to get the mod of your dreams.

That's only half the truth, and you know that.:nono:You basically asked all those who are able to do this (edead, Leoroth, Baldyr...) to do the work for you, although they have mods on their own and, i don't know, a real life maybe?
That task would really be a sh*tload of work. It's not like it could be done in 15 minutes...
No one forbid you to try it yourself. There are tons of tutorials, whether it's python or SDK, that helps oneself to get the mod of your dreams.

Hi civ-addicted,
1. I hate being lashed out like that, especially when I never provoked you.
2. What the hell are you talking about? :lol: Sorry I have no clue what your talking about?

Hi civ-addicted,
1. I hate being lashed out like that, especially when I never provoked you.
2. What the hell are you talking about? :lol: Sorry I have no clue what your talking about?

What?
forget it. this is far too ridiculous.

What?
forget it. this is far too ridiculous.

LOL! :lol:
Civ-addicted I think you just made my day! :king:

LOL! :lol:
Civ-addicted I think you just made my day! :king:

You're welcome.

I just don't have the skills to do all that is necessary I'm afraid. I would love to work on this but am unable to do so.

I just don't have the skills to do all that is necessary I'm afraid. I would love to work on this but am unable to do so.

I just wanted to bring this to all the modders attention. There are many great ideas on this thread and it would be such a shame if they were wasted. Perhaps maybe leoreth or jarkov can introduce a 1500 scinerio in their mod

I've thought about adding another scenario to my mod.

I'd love to have one too (and 1500 AD really does make some sense), but it's going to be a hell of an effort to balance this I don't even want to think about it.

I'd love to have one too (and 1500 AD really does make some sense), but it's going to be a hell of an effort to balance this I don't even want to think about it.
I've thought about adding another scenario to my mod.

Well im not a modder but I think that it would be better if u guys collaborate on ur projects. I mean I realize that u have essentialy different ideas for ur mods but many of the things that u want to add are the same. For example, both mods would like to add more civs (namely Prussia, Berbers, Safavids maybe Egypt), both mods would like to add a scienerio. Well that all i can think of but thats still alot of work for a single person but it becomes alot easier with two.

Hey , i would love the China idea, but there is a revolt at the late Ming that overthrown Ming, but the Rebels lost to Qing due to an internal conflict, so you can spawn somecities in Chinato the rebels (babarian), beforee qing spawns