What other Civs would you like to see added to DoC

[Leoreth]

I agree that would be pushing it. Maybe an independent city.

 

[cmakk1012]

On the topic of areas of Africa left blank I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen the North African oasis sites settled. That’s just a personal anecdote, though

 

[Jipsu]

Okay, so how about this:
1) Build an Islamic Great Mosque, a Catholic Cathedral and a Protestant Cathedral by 1600 AD

Having the state advance religion doesn't seem like a good fit for Nigeria with the exception of Sokoto, and they would focus on islam. When I think about Nigeria I think about hundreds of different cultures but that's more a hindrance than a boon to efficiently ruling a young state. It's a hindrance that would be nice to be reflected somehow in modern times with stability, unhappiness and/or native uprisings. Overcoming this without civil war could be the unachieved part of the UHV.

Anyway, the cathedral goal would accomplish so much but I think we need a better way to force many cities. It would also be nice to force revolution to republic/democracy. "Be secular democracy by 1950 with X cities and don't lose any of them by 1970." Would mean you have to have to have cities growing but still enough stability to not collapse (or a great statesman I guess). A bit convoluted, I'll admit.

2) Have X slaves / more slaves than all other civilisations combined in 1850 AD

At first I was against this one because it's about the means of achieving wealth, not about wealth itself. Now I think it's a cool idea to give incentives to use the slaves locally, "go Benin" and to try to remain relevant while ignoring trade with the Europeans. It also somehow reflects the fragmented nature of the area if the native slaves come 'from within' instead of from Aksum.

3) Have 3 Oil Corporations in your cities by 1950 AD

Good because anyone that controls the area would pump the oil.

In general:

I think we should keep the regional kingdoms separate from each other because in real life no single entity controlled large swaths of land in the area. Also, precolonial kingdoms wouldn't build anything resembling modern Nigeria so merging their goals together to build 'Nigeria' as we know it would be backwards.

This ties to the problem of start date: how to decide which empire to choose, or alternatively, how to have several competing kingdoms in relatively small area. As far as I know, the only pre-1500 AD kingdoms that ruled large areas beyond their base were Oyo (maybe including Ife) and the city state of Benin. Oyo would lose some influence to trans-Atlantic slave trade hotspot Dahomey in the west in 1500's and would be finished by Sokoto in early 1800's whilst Benin would stagnate on its own.

I suggest choosing either Ife/Oyo or Benin as starting point, depending on the map or starting date, surrounded by native uprisings and cities. It becomes Nigeria with parliamentary civics or if it gets reborn from colonial rule.

 

[Pavel Chichikov]

Sounds cool, but these African civs should have heavily conditional spawns, like if Mali or Carthage survives past a certain date or attains a particular tech early.
I think far more people are interested in a playable Celtic or Israeli civ than another relatively irrelevant primitive civ, considering the former have been suggested since Rhye released the mod.

Nigeria would probably be best as a Malinese respawn, considering Mali today comes dead last on nearly development indicators in most years. Making more core-civilisations conditional, allowing for new civs in alternate-history scenarios would be the way to go, considering the original intention of the mod.
Also, if the region known today as 'Nigeria' ever managed to fight off the Europeans and develop native literacy, it would almost certainly have became an 'Igbo Empire', with the other peoples being assimilated under them.
Calling it Nigeria wouldn't make any sense at all.


You could even have a 'historicity option' allowing for more or less scripted spawns like in Geomodder's Feudal Japan scenario.

It's always a bit of a mild letdown if (for example) you destroy Greece before Rome even spawns as Persia yet all the European Civilisation and Christianity spawns in the exact same manner as if nothing happened.

 

[cmakk1012]

Sounds cool, but these African civs should have heavily conditional spawns, like if Mali or Carthage survives past a certain date or attains a particular tech early.
I think far more people are interested in a playable Celtic or Israeli civ than another relatively irrelevant primitive civ, considering the former have been suggested since Rhye released the mod.

Yeah, African civs should at least be optional like Moors/Poland. Also, haven’t heard much about people wanting an Israeli civ.

It's always a bit of a mild letdown if (for example) you destroy Greece before Rome even spawns as Persia yet all the European Civilisation and Christianity spawns in the exact same manner as if nothing happened.

A limited but potentially viable way to handle this might be a few prescripted “alternate history scenarios” as a submod. For example, in your scenario where Persia conquers Greece a special scenario would begin where Rome has a high chance to go Zoroastrian and then its successor states would as well. Another one could be if as Byzantium/Arabia/Persia you wipe out the Seljuks the Turks never spawn. Little changes, but they’d help with the immersion sometimes.

 

[Caesar Augustus]

I don't think you can reasonably argue AGAINST irrelevant primitives and FOR playable Celts in the same breath

That said I don't see a HUGE need for a Nigerian civ. I think the game would be in a better place leaving that area open for direct European colonization and/or expansion from particularly successful Kongos or Malis. There are benefits to having some areas of the map be up for grabs.

 

[Jipsu]

Some areas of the map can be up for grabs, like South America, Caribbean, most of North America, Siberia and Australia, although they all should have some native/barb presence. But in general I think it's better to have independent city states if not playable civs to make expansion less about settlers and more about military.

 

[Leoreth]

Having the state advance religion doesn't seem like a good fit for Nigeria with the exception of Sokoto, and they would focus on islam. When I think about Nigeria I think about hundreds of different cultures but that's more a hindrance than a boon to efficiently ruling a young state. It's a hindrance that would be nice to be reflected somehow in modern times with stability, unhappiness and/or native uprisings. Overcoming this without civil war could be the unachieved part of the UHV.

Sometimes UHV goals represent events or developments that are detrimental to the state. A civilisation is not only the state after all. In my opinion goals that run counter to the most effective state policy (e.g. gold or culture stacking) lead to the more interesting games even.

At first I was against this one because it's about the means of achieving wealth, not about wealth itself. Now I think it's a cool idea to give incentives to use the slaves locally, "go Benin" and to try to remain relevant while ignoring trade with the Europeans. It also somehow reflects the fragmented nature of the area if the native slaves come 'from within' instead of from Aksum.

Yes, although there needs to be some benefit to keeping slaves in that case. Just having a bunch of useless units around wouldn't be fun. But by the time I will implement something like Nigeria I will have probably revised the slave trade system anyway.

I think far more people are interested in a playable Celtic or Israeli civ than another relatively irrelevant primitive civ, considering the former have been suggested since Rhye released the mod.

So? This is an open brainstorming thread, and nobody here is asking for any sort of prioritisation.

Nigeria would probably be best as a Malinese respawn, considering Mali today comes dead last on nearly development indicators in most years.

"Civ A is a respawn of civ B" is an outmoded way of thinking, by the time I start adding civs this construct will not exist anymore. If you want to say the Nigerian spawn should be conditional on Mali not existing, that doesn't make any sense because it is clearly not historically accurate.

Making more core-civilisations conditional, allowing for new civs in alternate-history scenarios would be the way to go, considering the original intention of the mod.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Also, if the region known today as 'Nigeria' ever managed to fight off the Europeans and develop native literacy, it would almost certainly have became an 'Igbo Empire', with the other peoples being assimilated under them.
Calling it Nigeria wouldn't make any sense at all.

If the Byzantine Empire had survived we would not call it Byzantine. This mod is using modern, not contemporary historiographical terminology, and we conceptualise the region as Nigeria now.

You could even have a 'historicity option' allowing for more or less scripted spawns like in Geomodder's Feudal Japan scenario.

I have considered something like that, similar to the "Earth likeness" that exists in RFC RAND. But it's a lot of work and not very important.

It's always a bit of a mild letdown if (for example) you destroy Greece before Rome even spawns as Persia yet all the European Civilisation and Christianity spawns in the exact same manner as if nothing happened.

Considering that the alternative would be an empty Europe, that's the best we can do. Maybe in addition to the inertia rule we need something like the "convergence rule" to refer to this design paradigm. In short, since only real life history exists to provide us with plausible entities to exist in the game, certain events will always happen with the consequence that in game history converges towards real life history.

Overall though your post is needlessly negative and does not contribute to this thread at all. There are better threads to articulate this kind of opinion without detracting from the brainstorming that is happening here.

 

[Lokki242]

Talking about filling the void of native African civilizations has definitely brought native North Amercian civs back to mind for me as well.

I don't know about everyone here, but I think the Sioux and Iroquois would really be fantastic additions, especially with the eventual inclusion of the new map in mind. The Sioux would likely be a bit of a "fast game" but there's nothing wrong with that, with an emphasis on surviving the onslaught of American/Canadian and other colonial troops despite a clear disadvantage.

With the Iroquois spawning some time shortly before colonization, there would be more of a balancing act kind of play. I think it would be a lot of fun to play a native civ that is simultaneously attempting to befriend and resist the AI attempts to claim the Americas, rather than just fighting back a conquistador event. I think I've posted it before but their UP could increase the research speed of techs already discovered by in-contact AI.

As for a less likely but potential civ, I think the Mississippi Mound-builder culture could be an interesting inclusion, as I think they meet the definition of "civilization", and would be playing a much more peaceful, culture focused game than the other native american civs. Maybe they'd be player only? Another idea I've had is that since these North American civs lacked traditional "cities", their conquered cities would be auto-razed (without rubble) to represent the European practice of "clearing" land for settlement, rather than directly taking over territory.

Finally, some sort of Pacific Northwest culture like the Chinook or Coast Salish could possibly be fun, since they had rather sophisticated social structure and launched massive coastal slave raids. Plus it would finally allow the totem pole building to be used. But they probably aren't worth including just an idea.

A Pueblo/Anasazi, or Apache, or Comanche civ could also probably be argued for, but by someone with more knowledge on the subject than me

On an unrelated note, I still fully endorse the eventual inclusion of Australia and South Africa not too far off from Novicenoble's tragically dead modmodmods.

 

[Caesar Augustus]

I think the idea of a Mississippian civ has been discussed before and it came out that unfortunately we just don't know enough about their culture to make a fully fledged civ. Their leader, UU, and city names would need to be more or less fictional; their UP and UHVs would be highly speculative; and then comes the question of what to do not only with their cities but also the rest of their infrastructure. Civs that aren't meant to interact with the rest of the world need highly focused gameplay that I'm not sure can be provided in a historically plausible way for the Mississippians.

 

[Leoreth]

I agree on all of these three civs actually, and imo the Mississippians would be very interesting. Important here is only that they give way to European civs to allow colonisation to proceed in a historical way unless a successful player prevents it. So their cities need to be disbanded and their improvements removed. There should also be something that prevents them from chopping forests.

 

[Lokki242]

Making them player-only potentially solves some of those issues, as with the Harappa and Polynesians.

 

[1SDANi]

So their cities need to be disbanded and their improvements removed. There should also be something that prevents them from chopping forests.

What if we replaced Chop forest with a different action? Just spitballing.

 

[Lokki242]

What if we replaced Chop forest with a different action? Just spitballing.

Or just make it require copper/iron so that regardless of tech requirements, they would lack the resources. Have any copper/iron in their area only spawn later as well.

 

[Lokki242]

Sorry to double-post, but I'm sure there's possible event code to despawn their improvements and cities as well, potentially? That's not my area of expertise sadly

 

[Caesar Augustus]

Or just make it require copper/iron so that regardless of tech requirements, they would lack the resources. Have any copper/iron in their area only spawn later as well.

That would require a very careful look at metal resources worldwide. Would be kind of silly to make sure every other civ that needed to chop forests had some unforested metal nearby just to prevent the Mississippians from chopping.

 

[Leoreth]

Yeah, I think it might be best if the North American civs started with a special worker replacement unit that cannot chop forest or even build most of the traditional improvements besides camps. The Mississippian UP could be access to farms but still no chopping or other improvements.

 

[Steb]

North American native civilizations could be nice, but I'd be more interested in early civilizations of Mesoamerica (Olmecs, Toltecs and/or Teotihuacan) and the Andes (Caral, Nazca, Moche and/or Chimor).

The issues are that they have had very limited geographical extent (they may need to wait for the larger map); not much is known about their language, important people, etc.; and it's unclear to what extent we can combine a succession of cultures into one civilization.

The benefits are a more interactive game for the Maya/Inca/Aztecs, and better representation of civilizations in otherwise empty area-periods. The Caral (a.k.a. Norte Chico) in particular would be interesting as a civ with a 3000 BC start in the Americas.

 

[Leoreth]

I'd love to do the Toltecs ...

 

[Lokki242]

I'm one of those people who loves most new civ ideas. I'm just a champion for North America because it's so tragically devoid of native cultures at this point

Toltecs and a pre-Incan Andean culture would be fantastic. If only we knew more about pre-European Amazonian cultures as well, instead of having them be lost to history and only noted in one dubious account...