Rhye's of Europe Civ Discussion Thread

This thread is for discussing Civs in Rhye's of Europe. For the moment, we're still hammering out a Civ list. I will try to update this page 1/page of discussion to keep it current. Once this list is semi-finalized discussion about UUs, UBs, and UHVs can commence.

Current Civ List:
Western Europe (4)
Kingdom of Neustria (500 AD) -> West Francia (840 AD) -> France (990 AD)
England (500 AD) -> Great Britain (1700 AD or by cities held?)
Netherlands (1050 AD)
Burgundy (500 AD)

Iberian Peninsula (3)
Kingdom of Asturias (720 AD) -> Leon (920 AD) -> Crown of Castile (1230 AD)
-> Empire of Spain (1520 AD)
Portugal (1100 AD)
Al-Andalus (700 AD)

North & Central Europe (5)
Norse: Danes (500 AD) -> Calmar (?) -> Sweden (?)
Kingdom of Austrasia (500 AD) -> East Francia (840 AD) -> Kingdom of Germany
(920 AD) -> Germanic States (1260 AD)
Lechia (970 AD) -> Poland (???) -> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1570 AD)
Austria/House of Habsburg (1160 AD or 1280 AD)
Old Swiss Confederacy (1290 AD) -> Switzerland (1650 AD?)

Eastern Europe (6)
Eastern Roman Empire (500 AD)
Kievan Rus (860 AD) -> Principality of Chernigov (1080 AD) -> Zaporozhian
Host? (1650 AD) -> Russian Empire (By Cities Held)
Vladimir-Suzdal (1090 AD) -> Grand Duchy of Moscow (1320 AD) -> Tsardom of
Russia (1547 AD) -> Russian Empire (By cities held)
Magyars (900 AD) -> Kingdom of Hungary (1000 AD)
Ottoman Empire (1300 AD)
Umayyad Caliphate (660 AD) -> Abbasid Caliphate (750 AD) -> Fatimid
Caliphate (970 AD) -> Ayyubid Dynasty (1170 AD) -> Mamluk Sultanate (
1250 AD)

Italy (3)
Papal States (500 AD)
Republic of Venetia (800 AD)
Republic of Genoa (1000 AD)

Additional Candidates:
Kingdom of Sicily (1000 AD)

Total: 21 + (1) independents, room for 1 more

Cities Belonging to Independents: not complete
*Novgorod
*Dublin
*Belfast
*Edinburough
*Gdansk
*Firenze/Florence (Italy)
*Milan (Italy)
*Burdigala -> Bordeaux (Occitania)
*Tolosa (Occitania)
*Massilia/Marseilles
*Narbo -> Narbonne or Barcino -> Barcelona
*Smolensk (Russia)
*Halicz/Halych (Galicia)
*Konigsberg or Memel? Reval?

Input most definitely appreciated.

Other serious proposals on table:
* Normans (replace Kingdom of Sicily, start with armies in Normandy and S. Italy)?
* Something where Prussia is? (Teutonic Order -> Prussia?)
* Split Norse into Sweden and Denmark?

Note: HRE is not a civ (and we have civs for Germany and Austria) but a title which can be earned in game, possibly awarded by the AP.

There are numerous notes in the RoE Development Thread on page 4 regarding countries included in the list.

Thoughts or comments appreciated. Also mention if you *like* something or the list as a whole. Keep in mind that our estimate on the number of civs we can have is ~23, including Independent. (If you have suggestions for civ name transitions, please make them. I don't pretend to know your country's history better than you do).

Something else to keep in mind is dynamic names and name transition dates are less important right now than the content of the list as a whole. Ie, if you want to read Austrasia -> East Francia -> German Kingdom... as "Germany", that's fine for now. (It just seems pointless to lose all that data and list it without it).

Reserved for Future Use

Reserved for future use

some things:
1) is this list "official" ?
2) "the HRE is only a title" is your own opinion, I have been providing you historical maps (and not only) proving otherwise but you refuse to accept it. You only seem to consider HRE in the 17th century or around this date but the Empire has a much longer history.
3) the start date is also not finalized but until now a post-Charlemagne start seemed the most plausible (and IMO better suited), yet for you it seems to be officially 500 AD, which is a quite messy start IMO with still barbarian kingdoms raising and falling everywhere... for example where are the Longobards ?
4) what do arrows represent ? Are these civs changing names and if yes on what basis ?

onedreamer said:

some things:
1) is this list "official" ?
2) "the HRE is only a title" is your own opinion, I have been providing you historical maps (and not only) proving otherwise but you refuse to accept it. You only seem to consider HRE in the 17th century or around this date but the Empire has a much longer history.
3) the start date is also not finalized but until now a post-Charlemagne start seemed the most plausible (and IMO better suited), yet for you it seems to be officially 500 AD, which is a quite messy start IMO with still barbarian kingdoms raising and falling everywhere... for example where are the Longobards ?
4) what do arrows represent ? Are these civs changing names and if yes on what basis ?

Click to expand...

1) How can any list be official? No one has seen Vince-G in that thread in ages, who was perhaps the only arbiter of official. This list is the most recent, has been modified in response to feedback from other interested participants, and is the result of the fusion of my initial list with the only other complete civ list provided. As such, its the closest thing to a consensus list we have.

2) Actually, I'm considering the early history of the "HRE" as a reason to exclude it from being a civ. But more relevantly, it really was a title awarded by the Pope, and the holder always had another temporal title, which means its not a title associated with *land* or a *people*.

Why do you feel the need to have an HRE civ when we have a "German" civ and an Austrian civ? What advantages would there be? Wouldn't it be far more interesting to have a historical simulation where West Francia managed to hold the title of HRE instead of getting passed to the Ottonians of the German Kingdom? Also consider that in its early years the "Holy Roman Empire" was West Francia, or various dukedoms in N. Italy. And in later years it was actually in Spain! An English King was considered for HRE-elect by the German electors at one point, and Louis XIV almost let Alsaace maintain its "German" status so he could be a candidate for the HRE-elect title. Finally, there were Kings of Germany who weren't HREmperor concurrent with HREs who weren't King of Germany. Trying to make a civ out of that is like trying to grab air.

Finally, there was specifically a discussion on the nomenclature of the 'German' civ, and expressed consensus at the time was against HRE.

3) Based on what? Since about the 3rd page of the original thread just about everyone seems to have been onboard with a 500AD start. All that "mess" can be Independent cities or Barbarians, and there are something like 7 starting civs, with more than half the civs starting before 870. Since RFC starts with *4*, that seems to be perfectly reasonable. It also makes far more sense to start at or before the rising of most of the civs (Eastern Roman Empire being obviously impossible to do so with), not after they've already become established.

If nothing else, giving earlier start dates just means they'll start at the beginning of the mod if we choose a later start date. No harm done. Choosing an earlier start date is problematic if we don't have dates for civ starts. (I consider a pre-500 start unrealistic).

4) Arrows represent dynamic names based (at least loosely, and sometimes rather precisely) upon historical name changes (rounded to the nearest 10 generally).

Squirreloid,

When I proposed the inclusion of Kiev, I did it with three objectives in mind: providing a legitimate southern counter to Russian expansion and influence; historically representing a principality/city/area which remained historically important, despite frequently changing hands, for most of the scope of the mod; and enabling us to work the Mongol influence on Europe (in particular, Russia, Poland, and the Turks) into gameplay without having them as a horde of rampaging barbarian units or as an out-of-place civ transported to a remote corner of the map.

I think that all three of these objectives are important, possibly in the opposite order that I listed them - and the dynamic civs function allows us to implement a shift from a powerful Rus trading center to the westernmost khanate of the Pax Mongolica. Having UHVs that reflect this shift would make for interesting gameplay - the first goal would perhaps involve securing fur and grain resources; the second might involve controlling certain historical areas or razing cities in Russia and Lithuania; the third might be to create a Russian empire centered on Kiev rather than Moscow - which might very well have happened if not for the arrival of the Mongols, as Kiev was stronger and larger than Novgorod or Moscow at the time.


In other thoughts, I'd rather have the Teutonic order as a corporation replacement, as we discussed earlier, than as a civ. I'm in favor of having Gdansk/Danzig as an independent with high desirability for both Poland and proto-Germany, but I'm against including Prussia - there's enough going on there that I don't think we should use a precious civ slot on another Germanic principality.

More later.

st.lucifer said:

Squirreloid,

When I proposed the inclusion of Kiev, I did it with three objectives in mind: providing a legitimate southern counter to Russian expansion and influence; historically representing a principality/city/area which remained historically important, despite frequently changing hands, for most of the scope of the mod; and enabling us to work the Mongol influence on Europe (in particular, Russia, Poland, and the Turks) into gameplay without having them as a horde of rampaging barbarian units or as an out-of-place civ transported to a remote corner of the map.

I think that all three of these objectives are important, possibly in the opposite order that I listed them - and the dynamic civs function allows us to implement a shift from a powerful Rus trading center to the westernmost khanate of the Pax Mongolica. Having UHVs that reflect this shift would make for interesting gameplay - the first goal would perhaps involve securing fur and grain resources; the second might involve controlling certain historical areas or razing cities in Russia and Lithuania; the third might be to create a Russian empire centered on Kiev rather than Moscow - which might very well have happened if not for the arrival of the Mongols, as Kiev was stronger and larger than Novgorod or Moscow at the time.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. And that sounds like an interesting basis for an UHV certainly. I suppose exactly what we do with Kiev will depend on what story we want to tell with them.

In a way, Kiev has the same problem as England. (Hugely important historical conquest by an outside group who became the rulers). Its really hard to represent this in CivIV, even RFC. And Kiev arguably has it worse insofar as the Mongols are arguably more different from the Kievan Rus than the Normans were from the Anglo-Saxons. And of course, being at the far eastern edge of the map, the Mongol conquest is really more tied into events outside of Europe than into Europe itself.

In other thoughts, I'd rather have the Teutonic order as a corporation replacement, as we discussed earlier, than as a civ. I'm in favor of having Gdansk/Danzig as an independent with high desirability for both Poland and proto-Germany, but I'm against including Prussia - there's enough going on there that I don't think we should use a precious civ slot on another Germanic principality.

More later.

Click to expand...

I was thinking both (corp = knightly order and civ) might be possible, though that would require some thinking about. As it stands, I'd rather add civs elsewhere too, but if people really want more civs in the area of Germany, its the logical candidate.

About Italy: I think it's better to avoid Venice (make it independent but strong) and put Kingdom of Sardinia. It was the heart of the unification of Italy, after all. Obviously, if we can have both it would be perfect.
Genova may be a good choice too

Squirrelloid said:

In a way, Kiev has the same problem as England. (Hugely important historical conquest by an outside group who became the rulers). Its really hard to represent this in CivIV, even RFC. And Kiev arguably has it worse insofar as the Mongols are arguably more different from the Kievan Rus than the Normans were from the Anglo-Saxons. And of course, being at the far eastern edge of the map, the Mongol conquest is really more tied into events outside of Europe than into Europe itself.

Click to expand...

Good comparison - the Mongols definitely weren't absorbed into Russia in quite the same way that the Normans were into England. However, there were long-lasting Mongol/Turkic influences in the Ukraine/Crimean area even after reabsorption into Russia; the Cossacks (fr. Kazakhs) fought much like Keshiks with firearms (and inspired the same sort of fear in their opponents). One way that I had thought of representing the conquest, given the utter destruction that the Mongols left behind them, was having an event that reduces all cities to size 1 and destroys 80% of infrastructure - but also provides the Kievan civ with a substantial force of Keshiks or Keshik-type units to go after Novgorod, Moscow, Lithuania, Poland, and Hungary - essentially what the Mongols did. This would represent a shift from a more peaceful/economic society into a purely militarized one - and if we put city-razing into the UHV, we end up re-creating the historical power vacuum in Eastern Europe in the late Middle Ages and preventing the Kiev-centered civ (now the Khanate of Kiev, or Zaporhozian Host, or whatever) from growing geographically huge, as it won't have the infrastructure to avoid collapse. A real challenge to play, and possibly to code - but sounds reasonable, right?

Squirrelloid said:

I was thinking both (corp = knightly order and civ) might be possible, though that would require some thinking about. As it stands, I'd rather add civs elsewhere too, but if people really want more civs in the area of Germany, its the logical candidate.

Click to expand...

The reason I've leaned towards knightly order rather than civ has to do with the origins of the Teutonic Order - they were a crusading order that was invited to Germany to Christianize Lithuania and the Baltic regions, and they ended up being the dominant power in the neighborhood for a few hundred years. If we're going to have Poland/Lithuania and Austrasia, I think that they end up squeezed for land - and there's a great way to incorporate them historically by making a German UHV 'spread Teutonic Order to 3 Baltic cities (Gdansk, Konigsberg, Vilnius/Wilno, Strahlsund, Riga, etc) by ____'. 'Keep the Teutonic Order out of your cities' would also make a decent goal for Poland/Lithuania.

But as you said, arguments can be made for both.

Sounds like Europa Universalis III (fun game ) would be a good model to base your names on (including the HRE title)...

Riker said:

About Italy: I think it's better to avoid Venice (make it independent but strong) and put Kingdom of Sardinia. It was the heart of the unification of Italy, after all. Obviously, if we can have both it would be perfect.
Genova may be a good choice too

Click to expand...

The current theory I (and others) are operating under is the mod will end by or before 1800. At which point Italy doesn't become unified within the timespan of the mod.

Really, if the mod went to 1900, there would be a couple of other civs (Prussia for example) that would have to be included, but would spawn *really late* and have little time to play. I think Sardinia falls into the same category.

Venetia is far more important as an independent entity than Sardinia in the grand scheme of things, especially over the timespan being considered. AFAIK, Genoa controlled the island of Sardinia for much of this time period.

Squirrelloid said:

The current theory I (and others) are operating under is the mod will end by or before 1800. At which point Italy doesn't become unified within the timespan of the mod.

Really, if the mod went to 1900, there would be a couple of other civs (Prussia for example) that would have to be included, but would spawn *really late* and have little time to play. I think Sardinia falls into the same category.

Venetia is far more important as an independent entity than Sardinia in the grand scheme of things, especially over the timespan being considered. AFAIK, Genoa controlled the island of Sardinia for much of this time period.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Sardinia was Genoan for much of the era of the mod, and we may want to represent that (and possibly other territorial goals?) as one of their UHVs. As Venice and Genoa frequently competed for island territory in the Mediterranean, it might be good to give them a competing UHV for control of Crete, Cyprus, Rhodes, and Sardinia for Genoa/Dalmatia for Venice.

I think that the Kingdom of Nuestria should be the Kingdom of Austrasia, as that was Charlemagnes kingdom, and his kingdom was the 'modern' French. Also, the Eastern Roman Empire should become the Byzantine Empire around 570 AD because Justinian is refered to as 'The Last Roman Emperor' by some sources.
Lastly, how are you going to be showing revolts and uprisings? Your own units shouldnt randomly go to the other side, that is the least fun of aspect of RFC, the deserter effect.

Ajidica said:

I think that the Kingdom of Nuestria should be the Kingdom of Austrasia, as that was Charlemagnes kingdom, and his kingdom was the 'modern' French.

Click to expand...

Clovis's kingdom (First Merovingian King) comprised Neustria (N. France, centered on Paris), Austrasia (Eastern France and Western Germany, including the low countries, centered on the Rhine), Aquitaine (Southern France), and eventually Burgundy (SEastern France). Charlemagne's kingdom would include all this (in Carolignian hands because of Charles Martel) + N. Italy and additional parts of Germany (such as Saxony after much warfare). Where did you hear Austrasia was Charlemagne's kingdom - it was a small part of it, and he was never "King of Austrasia" - he was King of All Franks.

Further, Charlemagne's kingdom is the precursor to both France and Germany, and spun off a number of Italian city-states. To call it France is inappropriate. France was somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 Charlemagne's kingdom, and most of it wouldn't be France until near the modern period. Ie, Occitania (incl Aquitaine) wasn't a french possession for quite awhile, and Burgundy was a separate powerful Dukedom with no allegiance to France until the 16th or 17th century. The immediate precursor to France is West Francia, which is ~1/3 of Charlemagne's kingdom.

Also, the Eastern Roman Empire should become the Byzantine Empire around 570 AD because Justinian is refered to as 'The Last Roman Emperor' by some sources.

Click to expand...

Byzantine is a term used by western Europeans to describe the Eastern Roman Empire, as is "Greek". They continued to refer to themselves as Romans throughout their history.

Lastly, how are you going to be showing revolts and uprisings? Your own units shouldnt randomly go to the other side, that is the least fun of aspect of RFC, the deserter effect.

Click to expand...

That is part of RFC and will not be changed. New civs need a chance to get started. It may be less of a problem than in normal RFC because there will be fewer civs wanting to occupy the exact same territory, and possibly fewer chances to claim someone else's territory before they spawn. Regardless, where it happens is predictable in RFC, and will be in this - don't take territory you know will flip!

Other independent cities:

From start:
Firenze/Florence (Italy)
Milan (Italy)
Burdigala -> Bordeaux (Occitania)
Massilia/Marseilles
Narbo -> Narbonne or Barcino -> Barcelona
Caralis (Sardinia): minor. worth having?
Rhodes? Or should that be part of the ERE/Byzantine empire?

Appearance around 1000 AD:
Smolensk (Russia) ~
Halicz/Halych (Galicia)
Konigsberg or Memel? Reval?

Note: there really aren't that many candidates for independent cities in Eastern Europe during this era, unless we want to force Russia to conquer all of its cities rather than founding them - there were many small (one-city) principalities, such as Tver, Yarolslavl, Rostov, Pskov, etc, but this would force Russian expansion to be military rather than settlement-based.

Squirrelloid said:

Cities Belonging to Independents: not complete
*Novgorod
*Dublin
*Belfast
*Edinburough
*Gdansk

Input most definitely appreciated. I know I'm missing Occitania (which will need at least one), Wales, and huge tracts of Eastern Europe. Not to mention Italy (which? Milan and Pava (spelling?) come to mind).

Click to expand...

I am surprised and pleased to see you mention Occitania. I would suggest Toulouse (Tolosa in Occitan) for Occitania, maybe push it a bit SE if the Spanish get too close...

Is there a way to tone down the spread of culture? I'm too tired to explain why right now... But I thought it was an interesting idea...

Oh, about Tolosa... Both it and Barcelona would be an interesting choice for indies... as vestiges of the Visigoths that thrived in SW France and E Spain. Charlemagne treated that area as a unit when he divided the empire.

Anyway, I'm gonna stop rumbling and go to bed...

Bravo everyone on the work you're doing on a Europe mod/scenario, the only (perhaps unsolicited) advice that I would give: is it really necessary for so many name changes? Sure, it's historically accurate if you happen to believe that there is a direct lineage through these different states (example: Neustria to West Francia), but it's going to be pretty confusing and frankly off-putting to players who are interested in your game. And is it really necessary for name changes to occur so often and in quick succession (example: Magyars in 900, then the Kingdom of Hungary only 100 years later)? I know you've all put A LOT of thought into all this, and Lord knows that I'll play it either way, but I just think you might be limiting the amount of people who are going to download and enjoy your work. Just my two cents, I hope that I haven't caused any offense.

Squirrelloid said:

1) How can any list be official? No one has seen Vince-G in that thread in ages, who was perhaps the only arbiter of official. This list is the most recent, has been modified in response to feedback from other interested participants, and is the result of the fusion of my initial list with the only other complete civ list provided. As such, its the closest thing to a consensus list we have.

Click to expand...

Vince is missing from about a week I think. If now I open a new thread with my own list as you did, that will be the most recent. Do you think it makes sense, because it doesn't to me.

3) Based on what? Since about the 3rd page of the original thread just about everyone seems to have been onboard with a 500AD start. All that "mess" can be Independent cities or Barbarians, and there are something like 7 starting civs, with more than half the civs starting before 870. Since RFC starts with *4*, that seems to be perfectly reasonable. It also makes far more sense to start at or before the rising of most of the civs (Eastern Roman Empire being obviously impossible to do so with), not after they've already become established.

Click to expand...

I think it was only 3 people to agree and even with some reserves. It's much better to start after the death of Charlemagne, when the Barbarian Kingdoms become more stable. In the other case considering Longobards independent but Danes a civ is pure arbitrary discrimination. Choices should follow a scheme and make sense, the reason why I think starting atleast after Charlemagne is better is because the Frankish civ is notably missing and split into provinces of this very civ, which should start with vast possessions, not to mention the Arabs; a post Charlemagne start would be more balanced. Lastly, 500-900 is what is commonly referred to as the Dark Ages, meaning we know very little about this period.

4) Arrows represent dynamic names based (at least loosely, and sometimes rather precisely) upon historical name changes (rounded to the nearest 10 generally).

Click to expand...

Ok but on what basis will the name change. I mean why would Neustria become France if for example it expands east into Germany but looses land (in France) in favor of the spanish or english ?