Considering that the timeline goes from 3000BC to 600AD, which civs will be in this mod?

Greek World featured these:
Rome
Persia
Macedonia
Egypt (not playable)
India (not playable)
Greek City-States (not playable)
Babylonia (not playable)
Phoenicia (not playable)
Celts (not playable, minor nation)
Judah (not playable, minor nation)
Etruria (not playable, minor nation)
Germanic Tribes (not playable, minor nation)
Scythia (not playable, minor nation)
Greek Colonies (not playable, minor nation)
Parthia (not playable, hidden)
Seleucia (not playable, minor nation, hidden)

The Ancient Mediterranean, for comparison, features these:
Babylon
Gaul
Mycenae
Rome
Scythia
Egypt
Iberian Tribes
Germanic Tribes
Carthage
Lydia
Phoenicia
Kolchis
Illyria
Persia
Medes
Britons
Goths
Nubia
Tartessia
Assyria
Dacia
Hittites
Minoan
Thrace


This is my list instead:

Egypt
Babylonia
Phoenicia
Celts
Israel
Athens
Sparta
Persia
Macedonia
Carthage
Rome
Huns
Parthia?
Hittites?
Byzantium (not playable from the beginning)
Illyria? (not playable, minor nation)
Scythia? (not playable, minor nation)
Etruria (not playable, minor nation)
Germanic Tribes (not playable, minor nation)
Goths? (not playable, minor nation)
Independent (not playable, minor nation)
Independent2 (not playable, minor nation)


Only 1 of the ? should be in, in order to keep the number of civs below or equal to 18.

As you can see, the size of Greece (see map thread) allows us to contain 3 civs. Looking forward to a Peloponnessian War!

Reserved for the final list

I am not sure the is room for Parthia and Persia. From your list of maybes I would like to see the Scythians in the game.

Allready a nice list!

Would Scythia not beter by a barbarian invasion than a minor civ?

Parthia is Persia in a later time (dynamic civ-naming?)

Illyria as minor civ could be nice, gives Rome something to conquer

About the Goths: they're a Germanic tribe, so why add them? On the other hand, they build empires around the medditeranian (Italy and Spain), so maybe a late game playable civ. Maybe adding the Franks too then, as the where Roman Fuderatii and fought the Huns and build an empire after the fall of Rome and before 600AD

What about Carthage? Will it be Phoenician?

Parthia: No, they were just a re-development of Persia
Scythia: Not a bad choice for an unplayable civ.
Hittites: I am in favor of a civ in the Upper Mesopotamia/East Anatolia, but I dunno if they beat Assyrians to that.
Goths: Germanic tribes are already included.
Illyria: Not a bad choice for a minor.

Huns: Playable? And OK Celts had some civilizations. But Huns??? They would only have UHVs of ''raze n cities'', and in opposite of Mongols, who eventually created an empire, Huns didnt. I would favor them becoming a huge barb invasion.

Where is Carthago? I know you have Phoenicians, I know that Carthago was a Phoenician outpost, but couldnt it become independent, during an ala USA revolution?
Finally, good luck on this one Rhye!

Huns: Playable? And OK Celts had some civilizations. But Huns??? They would only have UHVs of ''raze n cities'', and in opposite of Mongols, who eventually created an empire, Huns didnt. I would favor them becoming a huge barb invasion.

I agree. Besides, where would they spawn? A massive Hun army consisting of regular units and unplayable Hun UU's would be enough in my opinion. People more educated on the matter can elaborate what unit it would replace and in what way.

oops, I forgot Carthage. Of course, it has to be in. It's going to be like America in RFC.

I was thinking of Huns exactly like you said: a UHV of city razing. If it works, would be fun.

Parthia may be too similar to Persia, but how can we add some competition in east Asia?

I'd suggest the Hittites as playable. (The obvious counter to Egypt in the early game and maybe collapsing with the spawn of the Phoenicians). And the Scythians as unplayable. No more than that if you want to keep it at around 18 civs.:)

Parthia may be too similar to Persia, but how can we add some competition in east Asia?

1)Umm...perhaps a strong unplayable civ (Bactrians, Aryans)? Parthians would spawn around 200 BC, but where? AFAIK both the Persian and the Parthian empire had a strong core.
2) Or 2-3 indy or barb cities (Baktra, Samarkand, Pura) and continous barb (Scythe) invasions.

I think in the new map there is enough for for the Etruscans as a playable civ. I think they have a lot to offer to the game, seeing as you want to include them already as a NPC (non-playable civilizations).

I there should be only Persia, but it shouldn't have competition in the East, only in the West. Persia will have to face the Mesopotamian Kingdoms (easily) but its major enemy until Macedonia should be stability. According to just maps I found, the Seleucid Empire got push backed by Parthia ~150 BC, Parthia lasted until ~300 AD when the Persians re-took over. Besides, if you add Parthia, why not add the Medians?

I also have a lot of ideas for the Phoenicians, in terms a UU, UP, and a couple UHVs.
-The UU could be of a different nature. It wouldn't replace a type of ship. It could be a trading vessel. Phoenicians, as I have read, didn't make ships for the purposes of war, but upgraded their trading vessels in times of war, downgrading them back to a trading vessel when the conflict was over. So maybe they could have a ship that could upgrade to a Bireme, and downgrade from a Bireme, at a low cost. The trading ships could have a +1 movement, the ability to enter the ocean, and be able to [do that thing that Great Merchants do, but only be able to get a few coins at a time, and never two times in a row at the same city.
-Two UHVs could involve this UU:
1. Be the first to found a city on the West coast of Iberia or Morocco.
2. Circumnavigate Africa by xxx BC.
-The UP could be the Power of the Purple Dye. Increased commerce on coastal cities and +2 gold from each dye.

1) I don't think that the Phoenicians found many cities W of Carthage, in fact it was Carthaginians who colonized the entire west Mediterranean sea (I don't think either that, in this map format, one could say that 'hey I circumnavigated Africa!', while it is Africa as it was in Eratosthenes' (IIRC) map).
2) The ship idea is a very nice one, I approve it.
3) Proposed UHVs (choose the ones you prefer, is the project going to keep 3 UHVs?)
- Settle 10 (overkill?) seaside cities
- Reveal any sea tile by 400 BC
- Lose no cities to Hebrews, Babylonians, Persians and Hittites till 330 BC.
- Control 5 different luxury resources
- Have 4000 gold by 500 BC
- Be the first to research alphabet.
4) Spawn date for Phoenicia? 900BC?

I beg to differ. The Phoenicians founded a lot of places west of Cathage, some were only trading posts, but others later grew into important Carthaginian towns. Some examples of these include:

Oea (Tripoli)
Rusadir (Melilla)
Tingis (Tangier)
Gadir (Cadiz)
Malaka (Malaga)
Abdera (Huelva)
Carmona (Carmona)
Ossonoba (Faro)
Ossipona (Lisbon)

Well, OK, I concede the point.

The Hittites should definetly be included as a playable civ(good for balance) and Scythia as a non-playable one. I also support the Huns being added because even though they weren't historically a civ, they made a huge mark on history and would be loads of fun to play. Maybe they could be like the Mongols in the Genghis Khan warlords scenario and have camps, or they could be similar to the barbarian scenario where you buy units. Or they could just start with X amount of units and no settlers and they could only ransom or raze cities. What do you guys think?

north of the greeks lived the thracians-dacians-getae, getae=dacians, they were named getae by the greeks and dacians by the romans. the region inhabited by them was quite large...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Dacia_82_BC.png
ah forgot, dacians(getae) are often considered a branch of thracians.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/Getae_200bc.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacia
my ideas about introducing the dacians are quite disorganised because there are so many to say...
the greeks founded colonies on the shores of the black sea... the relations with the greeks were very very good.
the romans were the problem :lol:
"Greek geographer Strabo claimed that the Dacians and Getae once had been able to muster a combined army of 200,000 men during Strabo's era (i.e. the time of Roman emperor Augustus (sole rule 30 BC - 14 AD)." "The Roman Emperor Trajan (ruled 97 - 117 AD) decided to conquer the Dacian kingdom, partly in order to seize its vast gold mines. But it took him two major wars (the Dacian Wars), one in 101-102 AD and the other one in 105-106 AD."
"In 48 BC, Burebista sided with Pompey during his struggle against Julius Caesar in the Roman civil war. After Caesar emerged as victor, he planned on sending legions to punish Burebista, but he was assassinated in the Senate before he could do so, on March 15 44 BC. Burebista died the same year, but whether he was assassinated in a court plot or his death had natural causes is a matter that remains uncertain."
Dacia was very rich in gold... details about the wars with the romans can be found on Trajan's Column in Rome
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/Roman_empire_1stcen.jpg
I really don't know whether it should be minor or playable but there should really be something to represent the region north of the balkans around the Carpathian Mountains and to the Black Sea and those shouldn't be the celts, the scythians or whichever other civ comes in mind.
(sorry for spelling or the ambiguous message, wrote in a rush)

The civ question is a very tricky question and does in my opinion depend on several factors:
- The map: Has it enough place for every civ? What does seem to be balanced?
- The gameplay: Every Civ needs to have interaction with several other civs and shouldn't be alone, in other words, most civ needs to have an opposite player (Rome-Carthage).
- Historical Simulation: That's what RFC is all about. So, the civ list and the gameplay need to make sure that Rome can conquer the mediterranean (without winning domination victory) so to make the spawning of byzantine not totally strange? And what to do with the Greeek successor states (Seleukia foremost?) that Alex should end up conquering? There shouldn't be too many "barbarian civs" in my opinion too. The gameplay doesn't differ that much, they would be in the same region of the map and you can save the spots ;-)

So, your map with the civs regions (excluding the ones with a ?):
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=225883&stc=1&d=1251369678

Your list
Egypt
Babylonia
Phoenicia
Celts
Israel
Athens
Sparta
Persia
Macedonia
Carthage
Rome
Huns
Parthia?
Hittites?
Byzantium (not playable from the beginning)
Illyria? (not playable, minor nation)
Scythia? (not playable, minor nation)
Etruria (not playable, minor nation)
Germanic Tribes (not playable, minor nation)
Goths? (not playable, minor nation)
Independent (not playable, minor nation)
Independent2 (not playable, minor nation)

We see there's

- room for the Hittites, but a enemy-relationship with egypt would be strange because of the distance.
- room for the Parthians as a northern persian horse raider people. They would also shake things up as there doesn't seem too much going on in the region if the greeks or romans don't invade
- Illyria has place, but it'd only interact with Rome, maybe the Celts and the Macedonians or as a source for pirate ships in the med. Does it really necessitate a single minor civ spot? (or playable on the other hand) The same thing with Etruria, but I do think we need one more civ in the region so that the Romans, Celts and Carthaginian don't feel so alone.
- Scythia would just be a barbarian nation in the spot of the huns and the Goths would just be a barbarian nation in the spot of the Germanic people. So for playability you could save the spot, but for historicity...
- The MAcedonians would quickly conquer half of the map and then collapse (historical).
- Seleukia has as a civ unfortunately no place, maybe if you'd scratch the hittites.
- How do you want to represent the asia minor civs like pergamon or bithnya? They would have place but we do not have room in the civ list. But the area looks empty.
- Babylon has a rather large undisputed mesopotamia for themselves. And nobody even mentionned the Assyrians (the three great empires: Egypt, Hethites, Assyrians?). So there's no place for another civ. But what about replacing babylon (just a city) with an empire (Assyria)?
- Rome would probably win a domination victory if it did what it historically did. So the civ Rome needs either to be designed specially but historical or ahistorical and like the other nations (like: in rl life rome won a domination victory, that doesn't have to be the case...)

- How do you want to design exactly the special cases of: Byzantium, Rome, Alex's Empire? (Byzantium being the big question here)

My list
Egypt
Babylonia OR Assyria
Phoenicia
Celts
Israel
Athens
Sparta
Persia
Macedonia
Carthage
Rome
Huns
Parthia
Hittites
Asia-Minor Civ: Pergamon, Bythnia or even a Seleukia "out of place"
Byzantium (not playable from the beginning) How to implement? I cannot imagine?
Etruria (not playable, minor nation)
Germanic Tribes (not playable, minor nation)
Independent (not playable, minor nation)
Independent2 (not playable, minor nation)

I think some of the special cases will have to be implemented with new mechanics. Perhaps, for instance, a unique power for Macedonia that encourages them to engage in rapid but unsustainable conquest. So they expand quickly but are very prone to collapse due to stability soon afterwards. In the human's case, this should obviously be tied to the UHV, but I'm sure Rhye has already thought of that.

We have a bunch of ideas from the Antiquity threads, but I think Etruria, if it is included, might as well be a playable nation. I can do the research for their uniques.

- Babylon has a rather large undisputed mesopotamia for themselves. And nobody even mentionned the Assyrians (the three great empires: Egypt, Hethites, Assyrians?). So there's no place for another civ. But what about replacing babylon (just a city) with an empire (Assyria)?

The Hittites would be a competitor with Babylon.

I just want to say that the Hittites NEED to be in. Not only did they control almost all of Asia Minor, Syria, and the Levant, but they sacked Babylon, fought against Egypt in some HUGE battles, had terrible relations with the Mycenaeans, and most likely were involved with the Trojan War. I think the importance of the Hittites seems to be completely misunderstood; they were not provincial principalities like Bithynia, but were THE major power north of the Levant. In fact most international questions in the golden age of Egypt (its 18th dynasty) related to Hittite containment. So who do the Hittites have as opponents? Babylon. Mycenae. Egypt. (and the sea peoples, but i think they could be represented with barbs.)

let me see if i can get some ideas:

UU: Three-man Chariot works (a la civ 3) basically they had lighter chariots than other peoples in the area which allowed them better mobility, etc. and so could have an extra movement point?

UB: this is hard, but an initial though is some sort of wall replacement that gives them extra defense and maybe something else? ill come back to this. (yazlikaya shrine works as a world wonder)

UHV:

1) No foreign culture in Asia Minor by 1200 BC
2) Control 3 (or more/less) cities in the Levant by 1000 BC
3) Vassalize one other empire (pref. either Babylon or Mycenae)

UP: ? i need to come back here too.

BUT they need to be in.

I think we can go with this list:

Egypt
Babylonia
Phoenicia
Hittites
Israel
Celts
Athens
Sparta
Persia
Macedonia
Carthage
Rome
Huns
Byzantium
Etruria (not playable, minor nation)
Germanic Tribes (not playable, minor nation)
Independent (not playable, minor nation)
Independent2 (not playable, minor nation)

Anybody wants to suggest accurate starting dates?

I too would include the Goths in with the rest of the Germans. There are simply too many barbarian peoples in that time frame to represent them all so I say lump them into three groups: Celts (Gauls, Galatians, Britons, Celtiberians, etc) which would basically hang menacingly around unsettled Europe for most of the game; Germans (so all the various proto-German tribes and then the Goths, Vandals, Franks and Saxons in the migration period) which would appear later and be a lot more aggressive in attacking than the Celts; and the Scythians/Saka (encompassing the Sarmatians, Alans, Rhoxolani, Cimmerians, Aorsi, Avars, etc etc etc) which should make settling in steppe regions pretty much impossible and occasionally form formidable hordes without warning. Then the Huns would be a single massive invasion from the east I guess, preceded by the other Barbarians being pushed towards the Mediterranean.

You've got to have Scythia in, otherwise the steppe nomads aren't distinctly represented until the Huns arrive and that's really unforgivable. Like I said, the Goths can go comfortably in with the other Germans. Parthia you can live without too because they're basically just a Persian dynasty which happened to come from slightly outside of Persia proper. Illyria is a really small area, probably not more than one or two cities I would guess and just there as prey for the Romans as Greeks so they can just be indies. But the Hittites it would be really good to have in. Perhaps they could replace Byzantium? After all the Empire wasn't finally partitioned until 395 and you're stopping in 600AD.

Edit: you posted the finished list while I was writing my post. I hope you will reconsider the Scythians though: invasions from the steppe were a big historical force in this period and it seems somewhat unjust to give the Celts and Germans a seperate identity but leave the steppe nomads as standard "barbarians".

Start dates

Egypt
3000BC, obviously. The Old Kingdom was created around 3150.

Babylonia
1700BC - middle of the reign of Hammurabi according to the short chronology.

Phoenicia
Hard to say, Wikipedia says there's debate and I don't know the first thing about it.

Hittites
1700BC as well, according to the Anitta text (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anitta)

Israel
Again I'll leave this one to someone who knows more about it.

Celts
Tricky one. I would argue the Celts never were a civilization - no cities, never unified politically, not even that unified culturally (because of course the Celts probably didn't call themselves Celts, that's just what the Romans and Greeks called them). If they're just going be glorified barbs like they are in RFC then you could go back as far as you like. Like I said, Celt is a misnomer so applying it to Bronze Age people is only slightly more wrong than applying it to Iron Age people. And the ancestors of what we now call Celts probably go right back to the earliest Neolithic settlers of western Europe.

Athens
The archaeology of the sites goes back past 3000BC (there was a Hill Fort there and then a Mycenaean settlement). But you're probably talking somewhere around 900BC for Athens proper.

Sparta
Same deal, but Lycurgus was supposed to have been born in 800BC.

Persia
550BC, foundation of the Achaemenid empire.

Macedonia
Around 800BC according to legend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karanus).

Carthage
I have literally no idea.

Rome
Why quibble with Varro, 753BC?

Huns
370AD is apparently when they arrived on the Pontic Steppe, according to Wikipedia. Or maybe it would be better to take the accession of Attila - 434AD.

Byzantium
395, the death of Theodosius I and the final partition.

Etruria
800BC ish.

Germanic Tribes
About 200BC is when the Romans start writing about them expanding into Celtic land (and thus coming onto the RFCGW map from Scandanavia).

I strongly suggest to replace the Hittites with ARMENIA . Hittites can be then re-introduced as an early dynamic name of Armenia.

The history of the Kingdom of Armenia spans almost 1000 years, from 600 BC to 387 AD (after which it was split between the Eastern Roman Empire and Persia, and became a client state of Byzantium until 428). At its greatest extend, under Tigranes the Great, it stretched from the Caspian to the Mediterranean seas.

Edit: you posted the finished list while I was writing my post. I hope you will reconsider the Scythians though: invasions from the steppe were a big historical force in this period and it seems somewhat unjust to give the Celts and Germans a seperate identity but leave the steppe nomads as standard "barbarians".

I agree here, because you can't justify that the Huns represent the steppe area because they'll spawn so much later and migrated/spread so far west.

Byzantium
395, the death of Theodosius I and the final partition.


I would favor 325 for that, the movement of the Roman capital to Constaninople.

Rhye, what's you vision of Babylonia? Is it Babylonia or any Mesopotamian civ like in RFC? Maybe a Sumerian civ replacing the Huns could be nice. I realy see the Huns ad an invasion of barbarians

Rome
Why quibble with Varro, 753BC?

Etruria
800BC ish.


Let me quibble a bit here. Sure, Rome is said to be founded in that date, however we are talking of the Roman civilization here, so I would really delay its start to when it lost the etruscan influence of its kings (since the etruscans are also a civ). Hence Rome could appear as indipendent in 753 and as civ in 509. This way if Rome will flip the nearest etruscan city (Veii ?) it will at least make sense historically.
The Etruscans should start earlier, say 900 BC, and they should be playable if "civs" like Sparta and Celts are. If anything, since Etruscans had strong celtish influences, but were definitely more civilized and most importantly more in contact with the majors, I'd make them playable and Celts a minor.

just to put it out there, i think we also need assyria, specifically the neo assyrian empire of around 934-612 BCE. They were the first "world empire" in the sense that they were the first to control all of mesopotamia, egypt, much of Elam, and much of southern anatolia. They were basically unrivaled at their height, controlling EVERYTHING. granted they had massive stability problems, but they still were hugely important. They destroyed the northern kingdom of israel in 720 bce. they also destroyed the city of Lachish in 701 bce and almost took the kingdom of judah too, but were paid off instead. they also had the best army in the ancient world, with the largest area of force projection, excepting rome. They were also the best siegers in the ancient world, with manuals detailing the 4 methods for assaulting cities) and even pioneered in the area of biological warfare (ergot). they made huge palaces and were experts at propaganda. They also had a distinct culture that flourished especially under ashurbanipal.

UB: Puppet's palace: adds minor stability, +x% maintenance, -2 happy faces.
UU: a) battering ram. available earlier than other siege weapons, maybe movement of 2
or b) Assyrian infantry: armed with the first standard issue equipment, maybe +1 strength, comes with city raider 1, and i wouldnt have any problem with a movement of 2 either, but that may be a bit much.
UP: The Power of the King: Palace generates 100% espionage, or +3 exp per 10% on the espionage slider

UHV: 1) Conquer Mesopotamia (including syria) by 700 BC
2) Have a standing army of 100 units by 600 BC(?)
3) conquer or make vassals of Israel, Judah (or both if its 1 civ) and Egypt.

ANYWAY, this all goes to the mesopotamian question for this mod. IE how do we represent them? they were not 1 civ, in the same way that greece was not 1 civ. there are many ways to go: the standard babylon of Hammurabi, the babylon of Nebuchadrezzar II, Ur3 was a scientific and cultural center VERY early, Uruk of gilgamesh, Agade of Sargon 1 (first empire in the world), as well as many others, but those are the highlights. honestly, i dont know which one is best? probably the way to go is to have babylon (of both Ham and Neb) but have it start at 3000 bce and have an initial challenge be to survive the attacks of indy Agade? that could be fun.

Sorry to drag on, but Phoenecia and Israel should both spawn at around 1000 BCE, maybe david would make israel a little earlier, but its still close enough. Solomon was probably around 1000, as was Hiram of Tyre, who helped him build his temple. Tyre, of course, was a major Phoenician city. Both civs kinda sprouted up in the wake of the sea peoples destruction/collapse of the Bronze Age cultures.

UHV: 1) dont lose a city before 2334 (thats the sargon survival one)
2) Build First Law Code (great wonder) in Babylon by 1750 BCE, Hanging Gardens and Ishtar Gate by 600 BCE
3) control Mesopotamia, Syria, and the entire Levant by 600 BCE (580 if you wanna get technical, but whatever)

Let me quibble a bit here. Sure, Rome is said to be founded in that date, however we are talking of the Roman civilization here, so I would really delay its start to when it lost the etruscan influence of its kings (since the etruscans are also a civ). Hence Rome could appear as indipendent in 753 and as civ in 509. This way if Rome will flip the nearest etruscan city (Veii ?) it will at least make sense historically.
The Etruscans should start earlier, say 900 BC, and they should be playable if "civs" like Sparta and Celts are. If anything, since Etruscans had strong celtish influences, but were definitely more civilized and most importantly more in contact with the majors, I'd make them playable and Celts a minor.

:thanx: I have done SO much research on the Etruscans, and can right of 50 page essay (and I usually hand school essays in 3 months late) on why I think they could be good (no scratch that...great!) for gameplay. I have bookmarked half a dozen pages on them, and could be a good UHV challenge to the human.

UB: Puppet's palace: adds minor stability, +x% maintenance, -2 happy faces.

UP: The Power of the King: Palace generates 100% espionage, or +3 exp per 10% on the espionage slider

So you want a palace thats worse than the standard palace (IMO) with only has a little bit of stability and 4 espionage. What you are saying is the 1st UP is: +2 espionage in only 1 city in the whole game.

Well i was thinking in terms of a palace that would be built in cities OTHER than the capital, meaning it is NOT the capital... think of them as minor Forbidden palaces... while the UP relates to the MAIN PALACE IN THE CAPITAL. Maybe +100% isnt enough for that, but i was thinking it could apply as +100% throughout the empire, so if your empire is producing 100 espionage points per turn, the UP would make it 200... though i think the +3 experience (FOR UNITS) per 10% espionage would be best.

sorry if i was unclear.

I like the second part of the UP, sort of. It could be dangerously abused. Before a unit gets created, all the player has to do is slide it up to 100%. Do you really want an army of chariots roaming about with 300+ XP?:dunno:

Generally, the problem with this mod is that there are few continuing civs that can respawn. If egypt respawns in normal RFC, it's still Egypt, if the Hittites respawn in 200 AD, they are... ? Again, some civ just aren't supposed to last...

But Rhye, you haven't answered one of my basic questions: How do you plan to handle Byzantium? And how do you plan to model the roman and Alexandrian conquests and - in the latter case - their offspring empires?

(Macedonia and Egypt can be modelled by dynamic civ naming, but what about seleukia and the other asia-minor civs? a solution could be to let the Hittites be two civs, their respawn being another country)

The spawn date list (copied partially from umarth)

I think we can go with this list:

Egypt - 3000 BC
Babylonia - 3000 BC (earlier because you need two starting civs... ;-) I would otherwise suggest to move the start date up to around 2000 BC ....)
Phoenicia - 1500 BC (says German wikipedia, 800 BC conquered by Assyrians and later New Babylonians)
Hittites - 1700BC
Israel - 1300 BC (or: shortly after the Phoenicians, so that the two near placed civs can coexist without the spawning of the latter killing the first...)
Celts - 700 BC (they were a civ! so early as they need time for the big land they occupy and the tricky environment, non-choppable forests...)
Athens - 900 BC
Sparta - 800 BC
Persia - 550 BC
Macedonia - 400 BC (depending on how much time gameplay needs; they conquered the world in around 20 years (350-330) and then were the small country again... how to represent?)
Carthage - 600 BC (founded 8th or 9th century, but in 6th century, became independent when Tyros got conquered by the Persians)
Rome - 500 BC (out of the blue, i think it's dependent on gameplay)
Huns - 370 AD (the historical date, you could make them earlier to simulate other barbs...)
Byzantium - 325 AD (movement of capital to constantinople, depending on the hun spawn
Etruria (not playable, minor nation) - 800 BC
Germanic Tribes (not playable, minor nation) - 200 BC or rather all the time as barbs...
Independent (not playable, minor nation)
Independent2 (not playable, minor nation)

Anybody wants to suggest accurate starting dates?

1) We have many civs spawning in the same time frame this way (1000 BC - 500 BC). Doesn't seem good. Maybe a special time and turn frame that gives many turns to a special time in the middle and then accelerates again when we have fewer civs (rome, carthage, celts, greeks, egypt and in the east only persia).

2) RFGW seems to follow an odd scheme. In RFC, the amount of civs present rises with the game time. In the modern era, there is the most going on, most civ present, most map populated. In "600 AD", we would in RFGW only have - if historical - a big Roman Empire and Persia that both crumble to barbarians, not really interesting. So maybe the mod could end earlier with the height of the Roman empire and eliminate the Huns thus?

3) On the other side, at the start not much is going on. I would thus advocate pushing the start date to a later time (babylon only spawned that late, the sumerians were earlier though). At the beginning you would have for quite a long time only 1 (or 2) civs only prolonging loading time. On the other hand, you can use the extra turns later on ;-)

4) "Civ Clusters/Opponents"
Rome-Carthage-Celts
Athens-Sparta-Macedonia
Byzantium-Huns-(Rome)
Persia-Babylon (1500 years between the two!!)
Hittite-Egypt (??? ) <-- For this to happen there must be no civs inbetween
Phoenicia-Hebrew ^^ thus need to spawn later, around 1200 BC

5) I want to further advocate for Assyria as a competition to Babylon which would make the clusters the following:
Hittites-Assyria-Babylon-(Phoenicia)
Egypt-Israel-Phoenicia
Enough arguments in the other posts

6) I am still not happy about the situation around "Syria", there seem to be too many civs for too few place?

I like the second part of the UP, sort of. It could be dangerously abused. Before a unit gets created, all the player has to do is slide it up to 100%. Do you really want an army of chariots roaming about with 300+ XP?:dunno:

Exactly my thoughts, though the cap would actually be at 30 (10 goes into 100 10 times, 3 experience for every 10%= tops 30 experience which is still way too much. 100% espionage throughout empire is much better but 50% might be more balanced?

That was an... erm... typo....:hammer2:
Seriously... wtf?!?? Must be that Gran Tarino I just watched....:dunno:

@zach + metal: hey im good with tuning... its good to start somewhere though. :)

I think there should be several distinct (for design purposes) "waves" of civ spawnings... first should start at or near the beginning and would allow for representation of the Bronze age, which basically saw the birth of civilizations everywhere... and a lot of them. While not all civs began in 3000 BCE (such as the hittites) these civs flourished until the collapse of around 1200 BCE. after this we would see the second wave of civs: the Iron age. Small kingdoms emerge, like Phoenecia, Israel, Assyria, Persia, etc. while the larger ones from the bronze age wane and/or collapse. These civs rise and create ever larger empires until stage 3: Alex and After. Alex's conquests see the downfall of all of the older empires to the south and east and lead to the successor states and the diadochi wars... which in turn lead to the rise (rebirth) of local empires, like (parthia and armenia) and finally stage 4: Rise of Rome. We all know what that entails, basically mop up as much of the map as you can, but it should also entail civil wars and fractious states... Finally, after all that is accomplished, we should enter stage 5: the Decline and Fall of Rome (GIBBON!) this stage should be about maintaining the empire as barbs, indys, and other threats pop up and try to break it up.... and finally do.

Therefore I think we should try and think in these terms when trying to decide the flow of history (that sounded so cool)

so to recap:

Stage 1: Bronze Age: 3000-1200 BCE
Stage 2: Iron Age: ~1200-330 BCE
Stage 3: Hellenistic Age: ~330~100 BCE
Stage 4: Rise of Rome: ~250 BCE-180 CE (yes there is overlap... thats fine)
Stage 5: Decline and Fall: 180-600 CE

also, @mitsho: I agree there will be a lot of crowding in Syria, but thats how it really was... it was a contested periphery and lots of peoples wanted it and lots of people lived there too. I think we just need to think of a way to stagger which civs come in when.

The region is too crowded for Israel, and it wasn't enough of an empire.
I don't like nonplayable civs and don't see a reason to make them so.
I don't see the advantage of independents over the barbarian state.

I'd prefer India and two civs chosen from among Parthia, Nubia, and more Celtic and Germanic tribes.
* India fills its space, balancing Persia and giving Alexander a final target.
* Nubia fills its space and adds a fun outside factor.
* Parthia fills its space and balances the eastern civs, which are strong on the old map.
* More Celtic and Germanic tribes fill their large space, and in history there were many tribes.

also, @mitsho: I agree there will be a lot of crowding in Syria, but thats how it really was... it was a contested periphery and lots of peoples wanted it and lots of people lived there too. I think we just need to think of a way to stagger which civs come in when.

I was actually referring more to the tiles of the map we have, not to the historical evolution ;-)

@Jet

... but Israel is popular! ;-) (same with Phoenicia btw.)
... Barbarians attack, Independents don't. You need two Indies to prevent huge independent empires.
... nonplayable civs add flavour and add units that should be confined two one area (see celts/natives)

... India is on the edge of the map, too few tiles, not much interaction (only persia), thus it can be represented by independent cities...
... Nubia is the same, only Egypt as interaction...
... for Parthia, a case can be made, imho it boils down to the question of how many civs you want in the region. I'd prefer Seleukia or Assyria over Parthia though.
... Celts and Germanics are represented by Celts, Germanic People, Barbarians and Independents. That gives enough of a mix as it seems.

I agree that one could replace Etruria either with them as a real civ or with a civ from the east, as there don't seem to be that many tiles in Italy. The West would then however be quite empty. (Athens needs to colonize a whole lot then btw...)

m

Barbarians attack, Independents don't.
I don't see the value of that here.

Well you see, Independents are there (gameplay-wise) to block the other civs from settling the regions with ease, instead they must conquer these regions.
Barbarians however provide actual threat to the civ and it must build troops to defend even if it doesn't wish to expand towards their direction (and might capture the city just to raze it to prevent more barbarians).

So what?

So thats why we should have independents.

Why would you want that in this scenario?

What's the other option? Letting civ collapse into Barbarian cities makes the barbs only stronger creating a snowball effect erasing all civs...

But Rhye, you haven't answered one of my basic questions: How do you plan to handle Byzantium? And how do you plan to model the roman and Alexandrian conquests and - in the latter case - their offspring empires?


Maybe Byzantium and Seleucia could both be set as no-playable civs, which will only appear in case of empire split after a certain year.
But I already imagine modmods for making them playable, especially Byzantium...

Possibly, but it is easier for the AI to conquer barbarian cities than independent cities. So, it is more likely that somebody retakes the area soon. Also, I think that expansion instability, or perhaps only the instability for expanding into foreign territory, should be much lower in RFC:GW.

EDIT: answer to mitsho..

I think that it would be great have 1 or maybe 2 playable germanic tribes late in the game (like franks,visigoths,vandals).
They had powerful kingdoms that lasted many years and they would be very interesting to play in my opinion (try to conquer roman territories, resist the hun hordes).
So maybe the endgame could become more exciting...

I second Bonci, there should be more civs playable in the different eras and not too close geographically, so that the player can have decent goals. I would scrap both Phoenicians (or Carthaginians) and Israel for this reason.
About the mesopotamian civs, if you're going to have only one then I would name is Assirobabylonians and give them mixed leaders/goals/UB/UU, or just give them mixed leaders and change names according to the leader.

I think Babylon's or/and Assyria's UP should be the Power of Assimilation (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=281289). If there is one thing my Global9 teacher branded into my brain was Cultural Diffusion in ancient Mesopotamia, especially in the development of iron working.

I would scrap both Phoenicians (or Carthaginians) and Israel for this reason.

yep...talking in civilization terms I don't see a reason to keep israel as a civ...there is room for maybe 2 cities and then? They never had a large kingdom and they never tried to conquer anything relevant but with this map they are an obstacle for many other civs...
Ok they founded judaism but that could be made like in standard RFC with an indipendend city...

phoenicians could be an interesting early colonizing civ instead...

:\ I was really looking forward to playing Israel. I'm sure if anyone can make them into an interesting civ to play that's Rhye.

Okay, so no Scythian civ - but will the invasions of the Medes, Cimmerians, Massagetae, Sarmatians, etc. still be represented by standard barbarian attacks?

phoenicians could be an interesting early colonizing civ instead...

yeah but then there is no need to also have carthaginians, we can use dynamic civ names. Also against Phoenicians I have to say that it's hard to think of them as a civ in Civ terms. They didn't have a centralized or even decentralized state, they were a civ only from a cultural point of view... very similar to Greeks, which incidentally aren't a civ in the Greek World mod for now.

yeah but then there is no need to also have carthaginians, we can use dynamic civ names. Also against Phoenicians I have to say that it's hard to think of them as a civ in Civ terms. They didn't have a centralized or even decentralized state, they were a civ only from a cultural point of view... very similar to Greeks, which incidentally aren't a civ in the Greek World mod for now.

Ok, being partly Lebanese I have done a lot of research into Phoenicia and I can tell you for sure that taking out Phoenicia and making it a barabarian/independent civ would be a real tragedy as so much happned within time. For starters you could have Phoencia spawn earlier like 1200 BC and one of there UHV's could be to colonize areas of the mediteranean (there are about 60 Phoencian colonies scattered around the mediteranean) and circumnavigate africa (if there is a africa) or even be the first to reach england and setup open borders with the britons (or whatever) or even be the first to discover alphabet (which I would strongly recommand be one UHV) and then when the Carthiginans come you can have all the Phonecian colonies in Spain, North Africa and Sicily flip to the Carthaginans and there goal could be to continue to expand into spain or hold there colonies against the Romans (etc..). What I'm trying to say is that there is so much game play potential for both these civ's.

@Rhye
If in the end you do decide to keep Carthage and Phoenicia, I would be more then glad to help give you ideas and research on these two civ's UHV's, UB, UU and leaders, literally anything.

Ok, being partly Lebanese I have done a lot of research into Phoenicia and I can tell you for sure that taking out Phoenicia and making it a barabarian/independent civ would be a real tragedy as so much happned within time.

First, if you had done research in all other ancient civs, I ensure you that you'd think the same of each and any of them. Including the "barbaric" (in Civ terms) Sea Peoples.
Second and most important, I didn't propose what you suggest I would have proposed. I said there's no need to have 2 civs (Phoenicians and Carthaginians) at the same time if we can make the first become the second thanks to already existing mechanics in the mod. I would never think to make Phoenicians indipendents or barbarians...

I saw on your site that leaders were 0% completed, so let me start the discussion by adding some info about Israel: it's either David or Solomon for the first leader, here's the links for info on both of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon.
If we want 3 leaders for Israel then 2nd could be Jehoshaphat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehoshaphat, and 3rd probably Manasseh, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehoshaphat.
I picked the ones who I remember from school to be the most influentual (we've only learned about half of them, the other half didn't do any important stuff).

you can start a new thread for that

I personally would want to see (Please don't flame me for this) Saxons as playable. They were a very powerful group that conquered Brittina, we all know that, but they were thank important they should be put in the game (In my opinion, that is). Their conquests separated England from main Europe and into the Scavindanian world, which would stay so until the Norman conquests, just before an entire millenium has past (Okay, it was more like 700 years, but still).

I really think that separates the Saxons from the rest of the Germanic tribes (Technically, the Saxons were Danish anyways), who mainy rushed towards Rome. If they were a Civ, they would have peace and friendly relationship to the Germainic Tribes (Scince they all share a common enemy), but their UHV and UP would sponser an invasion of Britian instead of Rome, just like real life.

Maybe Goths would make a better playable Barbarian faction during the fall of Rome, I don't know, but I'd help with Saxons In terms of ideas if they were so choosen.

Rather than debate the merits of individual civilizations, I think that Mishto had the right idea with the map that demonstrated spaces and interactions. We have to look at a few different things when making these decisions:

1. Which civs were historically important
2. Which civs interacted with other civs, and when
3. Where is there room, and where should there be room?

The map Mishto posted included big open spaces in Asia Minor and to the east. Parthia, Pontus, Lydia, and maybe even Bactria would all fit there, if they would deserve to be in the game.

Here's Rhye's list:


Egypt
Babylonia
Phoenicia
Hittites
Israel
Celts
Athens
Sparta
Persia
Macedonia
Carthage
Rome
Huns
Byzantium
Etruria (not playable, minor nation)
Germanic Tribes (not playable, minor nation)
Independent (not playable, minor nation)
Independent2 (not playable, minor nation)

It's based on the 18-civ limit. Are we sticking with that?

I also wouldn't mind seeing the Celts in the game (saxons is a later term) as either a minor or playable faction

Erm, the Saxons weren't Celts and the Celts are in there anyway.

oops I didn't realize the celts were already added, so if they are already added why have the saxons? Plus you associate Saxons with the dark ages while this is more the Ancient/Classical period.

but 476-600 actually are dark ages...

But I would still have to say that its too small of a time frame. If we were going to add in the Dark Ages of Europe (which I think would be SUPER cool) then we could add the Saxons and the Muslim Caliphate at 633 AD, but since it ends so soon there is no point.

yeah but there are the huns so why not one or two other german "barbarian" civilizations?

When designing a game, the question shouldn't be "why not?" so much as "why?"

for the same reasons why huns are in I guess :)

The Huns came much earlier, and interacted with the other civs in the game significantly more than the Saxons did.

I am not talking only about saxons...i talk about franks,goths,vandals...

Huns according to the wikipedia entered Europe around 370 a.d.
The Frankish confederation probably began to coalesce in the 230s.
Goths began to migrate to the Black Sea from the mid-2nd century.
Vandals attacked Rome for the first time in 271 a.d.
In 441/442, Saxons are mentioned for the first time as inhabitants of Britain.

except out of all the other "barbarian" groups (I hate calling them that) the saxons are the least known. Why should we have them instead of a bigger group like the Huns for example. The thing is that there is very limited space for civs and we can't add a minor one which only had made its mark on history towards the dark ages/ middle ages.

The Goths are a possibility, I'd say. But I still haven't received an answer as to whether there's an intentional 18-civ cap.

But I still haven't received an answer as to whether there's an intentional 18-civ cap.

That was the original idea, though you could probably convince Rhye to think about changing it.

except out of all the other "barbarian" groups (I hate calling them that)

Then call them Germanic tribes. ;)

But honestly, the Saxons were important during the fall of Rome. They were the main force behind the fall of Brittina (But they did have help with the Angles and Jutes), and ruled it for SEVEN-HUNDRED YEARS. That's longer than the actual Roman Empire! Not saying that they weren't important is like saying Persia wasn't important in Greek affairs after they tried to invade it!

That was the original idea, though you could probably convince Rhye to think about changing it.

I'd be much more interested in changing the end-date. While ending at 600 CE may match up with RFC:E, it just doesn't make a lot of gameplay sense. It allows eliminating the Huns and Byzantines as well, freeing up more space in the 18-civ soft limit.

Actually 500 AD ending date would be more matching-up.

I think making a larger DDL is easier than you guys think. The World 2009 Mod is using a 50 DDL, for a point.

As for a hypothetical situation where we do use the Saxons, the Spawn date would be exactly 356, or turn 249 (The first usage of the word to disribe the tribe we're talking about). The game ends at Turn 300, or the year 600. This would give them exactly 51 turns to do everything.

The Vanilla game ends at Turn 500, or 2020. This is where I have a problem. The Saxons were a lot more important then you think they are. Without them, Brittina would be left alone as none of the Germainic Tribes (This includes the Goths), Huns, or any major group had plans to attack that Island. By not including them, Rome can survive as long as they re-locate to Brittina..

As for the "Not enough turns" debate, you could change the game to be 500 turns like the vanilla Civ and vannila RFC.

The whole point about the 18 civ limit is that more civs increase loading times, and in RFC (GW) it increases loading times a lot. I also rather have 300 turns, since 500 turns based on one or two eras makes the game feel a bit slow, especially compared to the quick advance in RFC.

Oh yes, I know that the limit helps with game speed, and I'm all for that. I was just wondering if it could go to 19 or 20 if need be. If we're sticking with 18...

Rhye's list again:

Egypt
Babylonia
Phoenicia
Hittites
Israel
Celts
Athens
Sparta
Persia
Macedonia
Carthage
Rome
Huns
Byzantium
Etruria (not playable, minor nation)
Germanic Tribes (not playable, minor nation)
Independent (not playable, minor nation)
Independent2 (not playable, minor nation)

Here's what I'd change. By-and-large, civilizations in Civ4 and RFC are at some level expansionists. That is, they put pressure on or took over their neighbors. Most of these are, but not anywhere near all. Israel in particular stands out as a civ that should be an independent. I'd replace them with Assyria, a major power in the ancient middle east.

Etruria, especially as unplayable, just makes so sense. Well-defended Independent (or barbarian) cities in northern Italy would accomplish the same thing. I would replace them with an unplayable Sumerian faction, to build up cities for the Babylonians, Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, and Persians to pick off.

As I've said, I'd prefer an earlier end date that eliminates the need for Byzantium and the Huns. Parthia would be the most welcome addition in such a case. They take an important part of the map, and if the game works well, would be Rome's primary rival in the end-game.

Etruria seems to be indeed an obstacle to Roman expansion. They make peace immediately, causing Rome to be locked in southern Italy forever.
If we want to keep Etruria playable, do you have any ideas to help Roman AI to get rid of it?

As I've said, I'd prefer an earlier end date that eliminates the need for Byzantium and the Huns.


Actually, Huns and Germanic tribes have been the most fun thing of the games simulated so fat. They bring blood and destruction thanks to a snowball-effect

Etruria seems to be indeed an obstacle to Roman expansion. They make peace immediately, causing Rome to be locked in southern Italy forever.
If we want to keep Etruria playable, do you have any ideas to help Roman AI to get rid of it?

is it possible to disable the peace treaties only between 2 civs?


Actually, Huns and Germanic tribes have been the most fun thing of the games simulated so fat. They bring blood and destruction thanks to a snowball-effect

so why don't have at least one germanic civilization playable? :)

Etruria seems to be indeed an obstacle to Roman expansion. They make peace immediately, causing Rome to be locked in southern Italy forever.
If we want to keep Etruria playable, do you have any ideas to help Roman AI to get rid of it?

In Hecataea they started at war and (I think) had a Worldbuilder attitude penalty. I adjusted the starting units until:
1. When Rome and Etruria are both AI, Rome usually wins. It often left one or two Etruscan cities as a vassal.
2. When Etruria is played by a human, you can usually whip enough Axemen to hold your border city and block the Roman invasion.

Collateral damage was a consideration. I didn't actually debug the C++ to see the exact AI effect of collateral damage units, but I did experiment in autorun tests with:
* whether Rome had the ability to build collateral damage units
* whether Rome started with some collateral damage units already built

That is partly why I put an early collateral damage unit in the tech tree: basically, 3 National Unit catapults at Masonry. I didn't want a lot of civs to start with Construction, because I wanted to lengthen the classical era, but I did want to make early wars and conquests more likely.

I did roughly the same thing with Rome and the Greek Colonies, at least for the Greek Colony cities with easy land access from Rome.

To encourage Rome to keep expanding after conquering Etruria, I gave it attitude penalties against some of its neighbors, especially Gaul. That did seem to help a little.

Etruria seems to be indeed an obstacle to Roman expansion. They make peace immediately, causing Rome to be locked in southern Italy forever.
If we want to keep Etruria playable, do you have any ideas to help Roman AI to get rid of it?

I'm not super-interested in a playable Etruria (though Zachscape certainly is). Is it possible to make it a perma-war, or would that be too deterministic?

or would that be too deterministic?

Yep, I think Jets above post has a good suggestion though.

I've finally seen Rome taking over Ethiopia and Celts.
May have been the extended flip area, or the 10 turns ban for ending wars, I don't know.

Hi Rhye!

So with the removal of the Etrurians, that leaves one civ left.

I vote the new opening to, (Yes, I'm still pushing for it) Saxons. I've made many points before, so no need to make more, but i'd highly appreacatie it if you at least consider it.

What removal of the Etrurians?

It seems Rhye has a fixation with Ethiopia over Etruria :lol:

Oh yes, I know that the limit helps with game speed, and I'm all for that. I was just wondering if it could go to 19 or 20 if need be. If we're sticking with 18...

Rhye's list again:

Egypt
Babylonia
Phoenicia
Hittites
Israel
Celts
Athens
Sparta
Persia
Macedonia
Carthage
Rome
Huns
Byzantium
Etruria (not playable, minor nation)
Germanic Tribes (not playable, minor nation)
Independent (not playable, minor nation)
Independent2 (not playable, minor nation)

Here's what I'd change. By-and-large, civilizations in Civ4 and RFC are at some level expansionists. That is, they put pressure on or took over their neighbors. Most of these are, but not anywhere near all. Israel in particular stands out as a civ that should be an independent. I'd replace them with Assyria, a major power in the ancient middle east.

Etruria, especially as unplayable, just makes so sense. Well-defended Independent (or barbarian) cities in northern Italy would accomplish the same thing. I would replace them with an unplayable Sumerian faction, to build up cities for the Babylonians, Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, and Persians to pick off.

As I've said, I'd prefer an earlier end date that eliminates the need for Byzantium and the Huns. Parthia would be the most welcome addition in such a case. They take an important part of the map, and if the game works well, would be Rome's primary rival in the end-game.

I have to agree with this: Israel just doesn't work with the civ dynamics and is so radically different than almost every other civ I see it being almost impossible to implement correctly and if implemented accurately would only make it easy for another civ to conquer it so if that is the case why not make them independent and use their spot for a more expansionist civ?

I have to agree with this: Israel just doesn't work with the civ dynamics and is so radically different than almost every other civ I see it being almost impossible to implement correctly and if implemented accurately would only make it easy for another civ to conquer it so if that is the case why not make them independent and use their spot for a more expansionist civ?

Ya I would have to agree to, I think having Israel cramped into the Levant is a bad idea, plus it will give Phoenicia more room to grow and expand (leading to a more powerful Phoenicia that will create colonies)

Why not add the minoans as a playable civ? They were far more important to early greek peoples and east Mediterranean as a whole than most people realize...

Why not add the minoans as a playable civ? They were far more important to early greek peoples and east Mediterranean as a whole than most people realize...

Thats actually a really good suggestion, so why not just take out the Israelites and add in the Minoans, but then again, there are other more suitable civs for this mod. Mollari, what would you think would be good UHV's for the Minoans?

Thats actually a really good suggestion, so why not just take out the Israelites and add in the Minoans, but then again, there are other more suitable civs for this mod. Mollari, what would you think would be good UHV's for the Minoans?

would a civ on a 10-tiles island be any better?

Yeah. Taking out Israel for not being expansionistic and replacing it with another non-expansionistic civ isn't going to do a whole lot. A single independent city on Crete would do roughly the same thing.

ya i have to agree, the minoans would be good but as Rhye and Arkaeyn have said there can be problems, but I still think they can be replaced by several other countries, which would better fit this mod.

Etruria must be playable IMO. Etruria stops Roman expansion ? Good, that's historical. Rome fought 14 wars with Veii and in the end managed to take it after an epic siege only thanks to betrayal. I mean, the epic siege of Troy is nothing compared. Only after winning Veii Rome started to really expand in Italy.
The weakness of Etruscans was also that of the Greeks, their non unitary nature, even during wars, something that the Romans exploited. We could find a way to represent this weakness, and for City States civs in general, or implement other artificial tools, like permanent war between Rome and Etruria or an event that simulates the end of the last siege of Veii.

As it is now, Ethiopia survives 50% of the times and creates a good empire. It all depends on how many cities flip on Roman spawn.

As it is now, Ethiopia survives 50% of the times and creates a good empire. It all depends on how many cities flip on Roman spawn.

Ethiopia?:confused: If the map extends to Ethiopia why not include Britian and have the Celts, which would be a really cool civ to play as

I think he means Etruria :lol:

and btw...celts are already in :)

Yeah. Taking out Israel for not being expansionistic and replacing it with another non-expansionistic civ isn't going to do a whole lot. A single independent city on Crete would do roughly the same thing.


You figured out the minoans all wrong, guys! They were amazingly expansionists - they may have been peacefull (sort off) but they were far from timid :)
They founded colonies, absorbed lots of cities throught cultural and economic influence, and may have conquered a few more - eventually they exercise some kind of power over most of the cycladean islands, Greece and Asia Minor coasts.
Their political system - temple/palatial states - lasted almost 1k years and their cultural influence remained a huge force in the Aegean world centuries after their political fall.

Some ideas for a Minoan civ:

Leaders:

Minos, Radhamanthys or Sarpedon (for one leader choice only, it would be Minos)

City list:

Knossos, Phaistos, Mallia, Kato Zakro, Gournia, Hagia Triada, Kommos, Petras, Galatas, Khania, Palaikastro, Amnissos, Mochlos, Vathypetro, Akrotiri, Kastri, Thrianda, Miletos,etc.

UP: "The Thalassocracy" - some kind of boost to minoan ships or to sea commerce...
UU: The Pentekonter (not that the name is historical accurate, but...) - an improved galley, with a little more power or cargo space.
UB: Some kind of minor palace - a courthouse with a good financial or cultural bonuses... Maybe a bull leaping game courtyard... Maybe both :)
UHV: that is hard... maybe something along these lines:
1 - have a colony at X different landmasses before X year;
2 -have open borders wit X civs;
3 - have X cities at the greek mainland and asia minor.
OR you could go for treasury thresholds... OR it could have to do with resources (secure X, Y and Z resources...).

They would go for "Organized Religion" as pref civic, and it would be cool to have a specific religion for them (IMHO)...

They would have to survive 3 great challenges (one may try to tie it with some cool UHV): a massive erupton at Acrotiri, with tsunamis, loss of agricultural production, etc (it seens things didn't get that bad, but it would be cool to see it :)); an invasion of myceneans short after the eruption; and a massive invasion of "sea people" by the end of the bronze age.
Best regards!


BTW - I'm all for the Etrurians as well!

I have to agree with this: Israel just doesn't work with the civ dynamics and is so radically different than almost every other civ I see it being almost impossible to implement correctly and if implemented accurately would only make it easy for another civ to conquer it so if that is the case why not make them independent and use their spot for a more expansionist civ?

Israel should definitely be in.

You figured out the minoans all wrong, guys! They were amazingly expansionists - they may have been peacefull (sort off) but they were far from timid

Well, I think Mollari did a really good job expI don't want laining everything and it sounds really cool but two problems came to mind:

1. Is the map around the Aegean sea big enough to fit all the little islands which the minoans colonized?

2. Since the Minoans are SUCH an ancient race of people will they fit within the time frame of the game?

But overall if you can address these problems I would love to see them in the game :)

The Turk:


1) that may be a real problem... Not that it would ruin the case for a minoan playable civ, but certainly it raises 2 points - it will be a real challenge to play with them and we may have to leave the "colonize X places" out of their UHV... But again, Rhye, you could do a bigger map :mischief:

2) well, their spawn date should be around 1900BC, not that early in the game, I don't belive it would be a problem...

When I release the files you'll understand yourself why the bigger map was a wrong option.

Your Minoan UHV suggestions sound good, especially the "colonize X landmasses" idea. But looking at your other suggestions, aren't you painting them out to be Phoenicia v2.0?

Your Minoan UHV suggestions sound good, especially the "colonize X landmasses" idea. But looking at your other suggestions, aren't you painting them out to be Phoenicia v2.0?


Maybe a little - of course the correct would be to paint the phoenicians as minoans 2.0;)
But we may try to put some more emphasis at the religious/cultural aspects of the civ... Well, not now, RL calls... :(

Are the Phoenicians still in the game, though? Some hints (AI war maps, new timeline) brought me to think they've been removed (I hope it's not the case!)

I think this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=257183) is usefull for the Huns.

Personally, I would just extend the map to the entire old world and include all of the Age of Empires civs in here, to make this "Rhye's of Empires", with a sequel being "Rhye's of Empires II: Rhye's of Kings". Now if I remember correctly, here were all the civs in Age of Empires, in no particular order:

-Egyptians
-Greeks
-Babylonians
-Yamato (Japanese)
-Shang (Chinese)
-Choson (Koreans)
-Minoans
-Hittites
-Assyrians
-Persians
-Phoenicians
-Sumerians
-Romans
-Carthaginians
-Palmyrans
-Macedonians

Uhm...what do you guys think?

On a side note, how do I stop your replies from gumming up my e-mail inbox?

That would just not be possible, since the Japanese and the Chinese had a very different tech tree. And there is a huge gap between any European civ and a Chinese civ, which would make Asia rather boring.

And to turn the auto-mails off, you have to go to "My Account", and then search for "subscribed threads". There you'll find a button to delete subscriptions, and also a button that deletes all subscriptions automatically.

I have to agree with Wessel on the Asian half, but I agree with you 100% on expanding the map to encompass more of Europe and north africa and the middle east

And for what reason would that be? Europe and Africa had little to do in the Classical era.

I think that the map's fine as it is and that RFC: Asia should be a seperate project. Let's not get too ambitious otherwise the whole project will be set back.

We're likely to always be asked by people to add to the map, different civs, etc. It's hard not to ask for MORE MORE MORE. Hell, the only reason I'm not demanding it myself is probably only that my computer can't handle MORE MORE MORE - I can't do RFC past 1700 or so, or RFC:E past 1200.

Fortunately, Rhye has his vision, and it's proven to be a remarkably effective one. I think this map is great and we'll have a lot of fun with it. As for the civs, well, I'm sure in good time that'll all fall into place.

And for what reason would that be? Europe and Africa had little to do in the Classical era.

Ok, first off what i meant by that was just that i think the map should be bigger in the sense that I would like to see it stretched (forget about the n africa bit). because I want to see a bigger Agean sea and larger middle east not to mention other areas. Also if the Britons are going to be added then there should be more of England at least for the Romans and Britons to conquer.

The Civilizations in Age of Empires II (which becomes Rhye's of Empires II)

-Goths
-Teutons
-Franks
-Britons
-Vikings
-Celts
-Spanish
-Huns
-Byzantines
-Saracens (Arabs)
-Turks
-Persians (Sassanids)
-Chinese
-Japanese
-Mongols
-Koreans
-Mayans
-Aztecs

And these are the civilizations of Age of Empires III (Rhye's of Empires III)
-English
-French
-Spanish
-Germans
-Portuguese
-Dutch
-Russians
-Ottomans
-Aztecs
-Sioux
-Iroquois
-Chinese
-Japanese
-Indians (yeah, I'm serious)

Ok, first off what i meant by that was just that i think the map should be bigger in the sense that I would like to see it stretched (forget about the n africa bit). because I want to see a bigger Agean sea and larger middle east not to mention other areas. Also if the Britons are going to be added then there should be more of England at least for the Romans and Britons to conquer.

The Britons aren't likely to be added, I suspect. There's a good five civs I'd prefer to see before them.

Hello, I'm a long-time lurker at this forums, but this is my first time actually posting so feel free to criticize.

I think the map is perfect as it is. Civilizations are crowded due to the small size of the map but this is a good thing as it makes it more of a challenge to get land. Civilizations that historically colonized the Mediterranean (e.g. Phoenicia, Greek civilizations, etc) are forced to do exactly that in this mod because there isn't enough room around the spawn area to settle a lot of cities.

The small size also means it's much easier for certain civilizations to make their empires as large as they were historically. On a larger map, it would be very difficult for Persia, Rome, Macedonia, etc to create historical empires.


While I like the idea of another colonizing civilization, I don't think there's enough room for Minoa to exist. At the moment, they only have a 10 tile or so island to work with. Plus, they would be in conflict with all the other civilizations for land for colonies. The colonies of Athens, Sparta, Phoenicia, Carthage etc would take up a lot of space.

On the map, I noticed there is a lot of unoccupied land in north europe/asia. I suggest maybe we add in another barb civilization, perhaps something like Scythia, as north of Turkey is vacant and no existing civilization in the mod historically conquered it (Persians/Sassanids stopped near Georgia). At the moment, there is only really three barbarian civilizations (Germans, Celts, Huns and some of them are unplayable) so I think another one will make the mod more interesting to play.

Well said. I agree that there is too much expansion at the moment in northern Persia by the Hittites and the Persians. I don't know if this justifies the addition of a new civ; I think many problems will be corrected once the settler maps are included.

My main gripe is about how the early civs don't have time to do much before the later civs appear. Phoenicia for example doesn't have time to colonize anything and already Cathage and Rome, etc. appear and control the west sea.

Well said. I agree that there is too much expansion at the moment in northern Persia by the Hittites and the Persians. I don't know if this justifies the addition of a new civ; I think many problems will be corrected once the settler maps are included.

My main gripe is about how the early civs don't have time to do much before the later civs appear. Phoenicia for example doesn't have time to colonize anything and already Cathage and Rome, etc. appear and control the west sea.

Couldn't agree more, there definetly should be more time alloted to the ancient times, so that the civilizations of ancient greece, phoencia, babylon are able to grow and expand before the big time players come in like Rome, Carthage and Persia.

We'll see, for currently the AI expands at random and doesn't have the historical behaviour war/settler maps. Once these are implemented, we'll be able to analyse and improve things like this.

We'll see, for currently the AI expands at random and doesn't have the historical behaviour war/settler maps. Once these are implemented, we'll be able to analyse and improve things like this.

Does this mean that Persia won't expand into the Ukraine?

Yes. Also, things like this will be less common when the stability maps are implemented as well.

I just had an idea: Lower the number of citizens per population point, so that 1 pop isn't 4000 citizens and 2 pop isn't 16000 citizens, etc.
I know it's just a small thing but I'm guessing it's very easy to change so it shouldn't be too much of a problem to include this in the next version or maybe the one after it.

Can you figure out where those numbers are?

Well in the game you can see them if you look at a city screen, they are in the top near the name of the city and the number of population points it has.
If you mean where they are in the files then I have no idea...

I have no idea either in the files, so...this is your chance to get your XML on!

We also discussed this on RFCEurope. Maybe you should look their for more information.

There are some threads to do that in the main Creation and Customization forum. The formula isn't that hard IIRC.

It's in CvCity.cpp, in a function called getRealPopulation, around line 5300.

The formula is 1000*FLOOR((POP)^2.8) in Vanilla/RFC Europe and 1000*FLOOR((POP)^3.2) in RFC. It seems that the historical maximum population of any city before 600 AD was 1.2 million, during the Golden Age of Rome. I would recommend that RFGW use 1000*FLOOR((POP)^2.3) as a first approximation of a formula. It gives high values for relatively small cities, though.

Don't know if the final civ list is decided yet, but i would like to see both Hitties, Phoenicians and Israelis, and i think i got an idea to make the hitties a main enemy of egypt. Making the independent city of Sidon (which in arabic is called Saiba) flip would make the Hitties more focused on what happens to the south (They actually controlled the city for a while). Also a egyptian goal could be to control a territory not so far from Sidon, and by macing their relations bad from the start, war will be present... (Will continue tomorrow)

It won't work, for Sidon is in the very heart of the Phoenician lands. I think it's right next to their capital of Gebal, thus it will almost never be founded. And it would not make any historical sense to have it flip.

Don't know if the final civ list is decided yet, but i would like to see both Hitties, Phoenicians and Israelis, and i think i got an idea to make the hitties a main enemy of egypt. Making the independent city of Sidon (which in arabic is called Saiba) flip would make the Hitties more focused on what happens to the south (They actually controlled the city for a while). Also a egyptian goal could be to control a territory not so far from Sidon, and by macing their relations bad from the start, war will be present... (Will continue tomorrow)

And here it i's continiued
Then, when the Phoenicians come's around, maybe a second flip, this time from hitties to phoenicians. It's mostly the same as when babylon make susa flip, and when the persians arrive, they flip to the persians, either by war or by peace (If it would be hard to make two flips for one city, make it so Sidon wont have any culture in the start and convert to hitties early by culture, and then flip to the Phoenicians afterwards).

I think that when the Persians spawn they should flip Babylon, since historically the city of Babylon was taken by Persian forces without a fight, and it was here where Emperor Cyrus created the first deceleration of Human Rights

I personally don't think judea should be represntated, but be independent. Would have been nice to see a third phoenician civ instead. Divede phoenicians into Tyre and Sidon and make Jerusalem Independent. That's my opinion... but then again it would be spare on lands to expand in...

Phoenicia is way too small to host two civs. When I did the City names map, I put Gebal (Byblos), Sydwn (Sidon) and Sur (Tyr) right next to each other, so probably only one will be founded in a game. One city is enough to represent Phoenicia... So imagine two civs. Besides, Phoenicia spawns in 3000 BC, at the same time as Egypt and Babylon, and centuries before the Hittites.

Concerning Israel, I agree it could be removed, but that's not likely to happen. It is a popular civ: many people, including myself, want to see it in the game.

I would also like to point out that I'm pretty sure the final civ list is decided.

I think that when the Persians spawn they should flip Babylon, since historically the city of Babylon was taken by Persian forces without a fight, and it was here where Emperor Cyrus created the first deceleration of Human Rights

You can't have the capital flip! It would be horrible for gameplay. With enough skill and effort, every civ should be playable from their spawn until the end (and that's a problem for Etruria...).

Rhye has mentioned to me how he sees Israel as the mod's One City Challenge civ, and put that way, it makes a lot of sense. I still dunno about Etruria, though.

I think the Etrutians could be replaced by the Vandals. One of their goals could be control Italy, Spain and Carthaginian North Africa by X AD, as they formed to pretty nice empires on these spots.

There's no shortage of potential replacement civs if something were to get replaced, but Rhye hasn't demonstrated any willingness to do so.

how is Etruria going recently? And Rome, does it develop?
I believe we can find some suitable goals and balancent for Etruria if we brainstorm.

Maybe don't lose a single city to Rome before X BC/AD could be one? Maybe a bit challanging, but it could work.
They were also enemies of the greeks and in time allied themselves with Carthage. So maybe have at least one Defensive Pact before Y BC (preferably 500 BC)
They also had influence over the Italian Penisuela before the rise of Rome, so Maybe a control Italy and Sicilia before Z BC could be the last. This will allow them to wage war against Magna Grecia, who were their's, and their ally Carthage's, enemy. This will again be best if it is compleated before the Romans starting date.


PS.
If you release a beta version, please post the link here so I could download it.

Last time I played, them, they were horrible. You don't have time to achieve anything before Rome spawns, and also, their is no copper or iron, so you're stuck to building archers while everyone becomes immensely more advanced than you and eventually destroys you with superior units. Thus I think they should actually have some metal in their core area.

Losing no cities to Rome is an appropriate (and obvious) goal. I also suggest preventing any Greek colonies in the western Mediterranean (Italy to Gibraltar) to reflect their conflicts with the Phoceans; they could then somehow cooperate with Carthage to dominate the coasts. As a third one, something less military would be good, but I don't know much about Etruscan culture...

Just wonder, could one of Carthage's goals be to win the Punic War by taking control of Sicily and Italy (Etruscan area not included)? Would have been quite cool. Also, this would make the player more focused on waging war against Rome, as they historically did.

We haven't really focused on UHVs at all yet (and I think that's a good thing, given the state of the mod). A Punic War-based goal for Carthage seems like a no-brainer, though.

What is our Etruscan window? How many turns do we expect them to be in the game, and how many turns do they have before the Romans spawn?

For a Carthage UHV, Maybe a control X wines by Y, then in Italy there will be enough wines for this UHV so a player could try and control Italy or settles around the med for the occasional wine?

Hello there! I really enjoy RFC and RFCEurope. This is my first post. Just saw the map with the civs regions and i wanna ask you about Thrace?

P.S. sorry for my bad english ;)
P.P.S. ooops its 4th post lol :D

Just a question, and i know this question don't belong in this thread, but anyway. Rhye, the music you used as Main Menu music on the warlords release of RFC, what's the name of that song? I have been searching for this soneg one and a half year now without succsess.

P.S.
If you plan to go that way with Menu Music in Rhye's GW to, maybe Alpha (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT5zCHn0tsg) or Chariots of Fire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYJzcUvS_NU&feature=related), both by Vangelis, could be a nice choice.

Just a question, and i know this question don't belong in this thread, but anyway. Rhye, the music you used as Main Menu music on the warlords release of RFC, what's the name of that song? I have been searching for this soneg one and a half year now without succsess.

Some version of "Al Nadda" of the Rahbani Brothers. But with some changes.

Not the main warlords theme, but the song used as the theme in the RFC MOD for warlords. That's not the same songs you see.

I believe it's parts of "shine on you crazy diamond" by pink floyd.

To me it doesn't make much sense to include the Babylonians as a civ with a 3000 BC start date given that the Babylonians didn't begin to dominate Mesopotamia until the reign of Hammurabi in the 17th/16th century BC. In my mind it would be more appropriate to have the Sumerians as a starting civ since they had already settled all of Mesopotamia by 3000 BC. But it's your project. I'm just giving my two cents.

Read through the thread and i guess you will understand why the sumerians is not in.

Read through the thread and i guess you will understand why the sumerians is not in.

I've read through the thread. I don't see a particular explanation for why the Babylonians should be in this scenario instead of the Sumerians. Sumeria predated Egypt. It would make sense to be extant in 3000 BC. Now if you're approaching this from the angle that Babylon extended its reach beyond Mesopotamia and the Sumerians did not, and thus you would prefer a historically expansionist civilization then I can understand that.

I think you do not see my point. The game have only room for up to 18 civs, and two of them will be Independent. This means that there are room for only 16 civs, which means that only the most mayor and important in history ones can be in. If sumeria is to be representated, i think Rhye would consider adding some Independent cities.

There are already two major Sumerian independents, Larsa and Uruk.

Just an idea for the represententing of the Selecvids and the Ptolemy. At a certain date (preferable around 320 BC) Persias leader will change to Seluceius I Nicator and Egypts leader will change to Ptolemy I Soter. At the same date Greek Polytheism could spreed in some of these civs cities and they could convert to that religion. This way you will have both the Selecvids and the Ptolemy Kingdom without introducing new civs.

Just an idea for the represententing of the Selecvids and the Ptolemy. At a certain date (preferable around 320 BC) Persias leader will change to Seluceius I Nicator and Egypts leader will change to Ptolemy I Soter. At the same date Greek Polytheism could spreed in some of these civs cities and they could convert to that religion. This way you will have both the Selecvids and the Ptolemy Kingdom without introducing new civs.

Considering that the Seleucid Empire and the Ptolemaic Empire both arose out of the Alexandrian conquests I don't think it makes much sense to just have them spontaneously arise into existence. Now perhaps if Macedon conquers Persia and Egypt and then collapses or liberates them as colonies...that would make sense.

Absolutely not! Or does America appear just if England colonizes the Continent? Does the leader change from Peter to Stalin (or Ming to Mao) make sense without a communist revolution? Does giving Egypt a high probability to rise again in the later part of the game makes sense (other than say, Carthage who I do see to rise again way less often)?

I must say that the idea is beautiful and needs to be implemented, because (and that is my gameplay/flavour argument) we would most probably never see such Hellenic kingdoms. But then of course the cities needs to change and so on.

I don't think though Persia should change as it is too far away and kept its cultural distinctivity (Parthians/Sasanids). So the civ changing should rather be Babylon or Phonecia (and Hittites to Pergamon?).

I've ben away for this for so log. XD

On a serious note, me leaving probably made all Saxon support die out... Can someone say the current list, not the list on the OP.

Considering that the Seleucid Empire and the Ptolemaic Empire both arose out of the Alexandrian conquests I don't think it makes much sense to just have them spontaneously arise into existence. Now perhaps if Macedon conquers Persia and Egypt and then collapses or liberates them as colonies...that would make sense.

I see you'r point, but because Alex's empire lasted for a so short while Macedon will probably never concuer all these areas in time. Also something like that would probably need ALOT of coding. That's why leader change would be the best option, beacuse it is already in in the rhye's 'n' fall engine.