Civilization Collection Series

Which civilization collection would you rather see?


  • Total voters
    28

Mjalnar

Kitten Arsonist
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
45
Location
Venice, Serene Republic of Venice
Nereyus, Lshipp and I have been brainstorming ideas for a series of Civilization V mods, where each one is a collection of 4 or so civilizations, most of which have their idea coming from 'shattering' an existing Civilization into 4 sub-civilizations.
Each Shattered Civ collection would contain the 4 sub-civilizations, a scenario, and, possibly, a re-make of the entire Civ. For example:
Shattered Spain would consist of 5 Civilizations: Galicia, Castille, Aragon, Navarra, León, Spain and a scenario revolving around the Iberian Peninsula, where the player must unite Spain, fighting against the Moors and the other Spanish Kingdoms. Depending on scriptability, once the player has amassed enough land in Iberia, there may be a mechanic to turn into a United Spain.

Before we begin with this series, we'd like to know which collections sound most appealing to you, hence the poll above. Here is a more in-depth look at what each collection would entail:

1. Shattered Spain
- Castille, Galicia, Aragon, Navarra, León.
2. Shattered England
- Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria, Cornwall
3. Shattered Celts
- Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Mann
4. Shattered France
- Aquitaine, Normans, Francia, Britanny
5. Shattered Germany
- Prussia, Bohemia, Moravia, Bavaria
6. Shattered Sweden
- Swiþjod, Norway, Finnmark, Gotland
7. Shattered Russia
- Novgorod, Cumania, Kievan Rus, Muscovia
8. Shattered Rome
- Julii, Brutii, Scipii, SPQR
9. Shattered Greece
- Athens, Sparta, Corinth, Macedon
10. *Holy Orders
- Teutonic Order, Knights Hospitaller, Knights of Calatrava, Knights Templar
- Prussia, Rhodes, Andalusia, Jerusalem
11. Italian States
- Lombardy, The Papacy, Naples, Sicily
12. More Republics
- Genoa, Pisa, Venice (Redone), The Hansa
13. Eastern Europe
- Croatia, Hungary, Poland (Redone), Lithuania
14. Balkan States
- Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania
15. ACTDEBSEBIWBAITD
- Burgundy, Magyars, Wendish Empire, Luxembourg

*Holy Orders will have a unique mechanic - we plan to have them start the game without any settlers, and they are incapable of building settlers. What they do get is a Great Prophet and a sizable army. They must expand by conquest. Cities which follow their religion will not enter resistance or create unhappiness. Once they own a capital and 3 more cities, they will become a normal civ, capable of settling, and with new abilities - for example, the Teutonic Knights would become Prussia.
 
It probably won't be those - we didn't discuss the Shattered Celts mod much. If the Celts are placed highly, the most likely Civ collection would be Lothian, Ulster, Gwynned and Alba.
 
I have a Civ (Vandals) in the making - almost ready - that does what you want to do with the Holy Orders, if you want you can get the code from me when I'm done, or, if you need the code to release it before I do just ask! :D

(Voted: Italian States, Rome, England, Spain, Germany, Greece and ACTDEBSEBIWBAITD)
 
We've decided that the order of creation will be:
Shattered Spain (Original idea)
Holy Orders (Developer's Choice + Highly Rated)
ACTDEBSEBIWBAITD (Community choice)
Italian States (Community choice)
Continuing in the order of the community's preference according to the poll. The order from here on is subject to change based off of this poll.
 
We've already planned all the abilities, etc, and made some loading screen maps and civ emblems for Spain.

Maps:
Spoiler :






Full Map:
Spoiler :


Emblems:
Spoiler :






Unique Assets:
Spoiler :

Note: These are subject to change based on what is/isn't scriptable, but this is what we hope to acchieve.
GALICIA
UA: Tierra de los Mil Ríos: City connections can be established along rivers. +1 Gold from improved river tiles.
UI: Valley Monastery: Can only be built on river tiles. +1 Faith and +1 Culture.
UB: Equestrian Statue: Can only be built in an occupied capital. +1 Happiness per 2 Population.

CASTILLE
UA: Reconquista: Gain 2 Caballeros Villanos when capturing a city which follows a different religion to Castille.
UB: Castillo: +1 City CS, +25 City Health, +2 Happiness
UU: Caballero: Replaces Knight. Cities do not create resistance when this unit is garrisoned in the city,
Caballero Villano: A weaker version of the Knight, with the Javelin Throw upgrade. Strength 19, movement 4.

ARAGON
UA: Cassus Belli: +25% combat strength vs cities occupied by another civilization. +10% combat strength vs unhappy civilizations.
UU: Royal: A great person who can perform Diplomatic Marriage with a civilization, giving Aragon +15% combat strength against them. Can also create the Palace improvement - +5 Culture and +5 Gold.
UU: Galeón Aragonés: A frigate replacement which has 3 Range.

LEON
UA: Mozarabic Art: Culture bonus in a city per unique religion in the city.
UB: Mozarabic Castle: +10% Gold bonus in this city. Requires 2 religions in the city.
UU: Espadachín: Every turn that the unit is garrisoned in the city, a citizen is converted to Leon's religion.

NAVARRA
UA: Pyrenees Economy: Workers can enter mountain tiles as if they are hills. Cities built next to a mountain gain +25% gold income.
UB: Plaza de Toros: Requires a nearby source of Cattle. Replaces the Circus. +4 Happiness and +5% gold.
UI: Mina de Contorno: Can only be built on mountains. +2 Production and +2 Gold.
 
Everything there looks incredibly nice! One problem though - the maps have to be 1000 by 1144 (or a ratio of that; this just works best) for the screens, so they'd have to be remade slightly. Don't suppose you'd be interested in collaborating at all? It's absolutely fine if you want to do it yourself, though I'm, let's say, less than trustworthy when it comes to coding stuff, so I'd probably need help from somewhere anyway.
 
I'll discuss a collaboration with Nereyus and Lshipp tomorrow afternoon. Personally, I see it as a rather good idea, to avoid our mods clashing, which would be detrimental to the both of us, but I can't make decisions for the team, and we may want to stick to "doing our own thing".
In terms of the maps, I do know this, the proportions are currently wrong because they aren't yet merged with the leader portraits. Once they are actually being used as textures in the game, they'll be resized, and if we reach any problems when we get to that point, I still have the .psd's, so it should be fine :p
 
I'll discuss a collaboration with Nereyus and Lshipp tomorrow afternoon. Personally, I see it as a rather good idea, to avoid our mods clashing, which would be detrimental to the both of us, but I can't make decisions for the team, and we may want to stick to "doing our own thing".

Seeing as you're planning civs that have been done, I don't expect you're that interested in avoiding clashes.
 
We found that the only completed mod on the workshop from our Spanish collection is Aragon.
There are a couple of overlaps with existing mods across the board, but each collection has more original ones than existing ones. It'd be impossible to create any complete-seeming collections of mods without overlapping with existing mods, really, and we have original ideas regarding those civilizations, for example, our Aragon is completely different to the completed one on the workshop, and very different to the ideas put together on Viregel's thread.
Viregel and we are both planning on a collection of civilizations which have, essentially, the same set of civs involved, meaning the two sets would clash a lot on the workshop, meaning both of us end up losing popularity, as the market for a Reconquista civ set is split between the two.
 
There are a couple of overlaps with existing mods across the board, but each collection has more original ones than existing ones.

That's a bit contentious.

It'd be impossible to create any complete-seeming collections of mods without overlapping with existing mods, really, and we have original ideas regarding those civilizations, for example, our Aragon is completely different to the completed one on the workshop, and very different to the ideas put together on Viregel's thread.
Viregel and we are both planning on a collection of civilizations which have, essentially, the same set of civs involved, meaning the two sets would clash a lot on the workshop, meaning both of us end up losing popularity, as the market for a Reconquista civ set is split between the two.

Anyway, I mean, for instance, More Civs is planning a Greek split, but you're not paying heed to that, so it stands to reason that you wouldn't pay heed to Viregel's Spain split. I'm not saying you shouldn't overlap and do your own versions, of course. I'm just extrapolating on my earlier point.
 
Sorry, that first one wasn't worded in the best way possible, I didn't mean that. I meant each collection has more civilizations which don't exist yet than civilizations which already exist.

I am simply considering Viregel's offer, since he has taken interest in the work I plan on doing, as I have taken in his work. I 'pay heed' to Viregel since he has brought the clash to my attention, and has offered a solution to it, so I, naturally, consider the solution. I don't go out and research the entire forums whether or not someone's working on a civilization collection which is 21st to 24th on the list of Civs right now. All we are focusing on right now is Spain.
 
Anyway, I mean, for instance, More Civs is planning a Greek split, but you're not paying heed to that, so it stands to reason that you wouldn't pay heed to Viregel's Spain split. I'm not saying you shouldn't overlap and do your own versions, of course. I'm just extrapolating on my earlier point.

Come to think of it, we might be better off doing them separately given that we both have a bunch of art for it already - if we do it that way, it ensures that none is wasted.
I advised Mjalnar at least for the Spains not to worry too much if there was a clash with existing modded civs or what Viregel was planning. [edit]I advised this before I saw Viregel raise the possibility of a collaboration.

If this decision offended anyone, it is rightly me they should be offended with.

I did advise that we look to avoiding on future civ sets clashing with existing modded civs as far as possible, but it is so darn difficult keeping up with what everyone else is trying to do or planning to do that a 100% policy of 'never a possibility of a clash' leads to one group or another just sitting around with folded hands.
 
I don't think anyone was offended. I, for one, just didn't understand the logic behind paying mind to Viregel's plans on the grounds of conflict, but not to existing civs where that ground would still be present. But, as you say, it was because he raised his concerns about direct conflict with his plans, as well as the potential for collaboration. There doesn't seem to be much effort to avoid conflict otherwise - but that most certainly doesn't mean there should('ve) been. I just wanted to reconcile the logic.
 
Top Bottom