What shall we research next?

I like the idea of the corporation overhaul, but I think it wouldn't work in RFC as you described. Probably it would take a while to get the right GP, and then it takes a while to spread the corporation, so if you don't plan ahead, it's already obsolete when finished. Having said that, I think that the idea itself isn't bad at all, and it might work really well for RFCE. Currently, the problem with the colonies is somewhat the same, and this would help a lot.

I finally know what my vote is: more civs! We could have a modcomp representing Korea, the Natives, Poland, Ukraine, Byzantium, Brazil, Canada and a united tribal village civ.

Hi! I like your mods! I usually play RFC RAND, I find it more exciting to not know what could happen...

I thought I would rank your ideas in order I I think would be coolest to least essential (but just based on how I like to play):

Further RFC development
Religions could use some schisms and ancient polytheism; mod could do with some more dynamic religious spread in decline (would be very in line with the mod)

Alternative history variants
Neat!

Rhye's and Fall of the Greek World
Would be cool, but after playing once or twice would probably play the less static RAND more

Goal-based contests
I never cared about my score before. I like to choose my own direction, so probably wouldn't pay much attention to the goals

1700 AD start
I play RAND, so wouldn't play it...

New UHVs expansion pack
I never pay any attention to the UHVs

Thanks for your mods!

I personally believe that there still should be a "fixed borders" mod of some sort to prevent the gigantic empty spaces in Africa, northern and eastern Siberia as well as western China [Xinjiang], Australia, and typically a good portion of Brazil. It would certainly add a new dynamic to the game.

NerfCothons said:

I would agree with you that early corporations don't act as modern ones do. Certainly in the current incarnation of Civ 4 a trading company as a wonder makes more historical sense. However, I am in fact seeking a different sort of historical accuracy.[snip]

Click to expand...

I mostly argued about corporations providing commerce. I do like the idea but not with raw commerce.
I see 2 main distinctions between RFC colonization and actual colonization:

1) founding a colony in reality was a HARD task, especially a colony in wild territory, rather than a colony in an already established colonial empire. In RFC it's an extremely EASY task for the colonial power since they will get free important buildings and generally will have more room for growth than cities in Europe. For this reason, conquering existing cities/settlments was more productive. Perhaps half of the english and american settlements in Central/southern North America have spanish names, for example. Colonizing new lands was hard because of different climate and natural conditions, hard and very long communications with the old continent, and native people being a danger that cannot be represented properly in a Civilization game as it is now.
2) Extra european civs (especially the asians) would not grant access to their markets to european merchants initially. Instead in RFC all I normally do is try to get to the Incas or Aztec ASAP so that I can trade for their corn, which they will gladly exchange, and I get that precious +2 health. East/West India companies were formed exactly for this reason: they were ppl who had special deals with such nations and could trade with them.

Europa Universalis is miles ahead toward historical realism compared to Civ to this regard, so perhaps we should look at its implementations.

Is EU as fun as Civ, though? I remember playing the first one and finding the gameplay kind of a muddle, though I loved the map and concepts.

onedreamer said:

Europa Universalis is miles ahead toward historical realism compared to Civ

Click to expand...

EU has been designed to be realistic (alternate) history game with historical world, Civ has always just been build and kill/go to space/hire alot artist with historical realism in some parts of it. AKA Civ has never aimed to be historical over certain degree, but EU aims to such historical realism that without player variable history repeats itself.

Uhh I wrote word historical too many times

I'd like more starts, and later. 1700 is nice, but 1900 would also be very nice..

In 1900, everything was set, there wouldn't be any dramatic change from beginning to end, so it would be more like a scenario then a mod. There were hardly any civ spawns or revolutions back then, except Africa and the Commonwealth nations. In 1700, there are MANY revolutions and diverse events, alond with several places that are not yet inhabited. Not just America, but Latin America, and don't forget Germany and Italy. Also, the CSA and the Soviets could get a spawn. So what I'm saying is:
Imagine this:
A 1900 AD-Start: What could end look like? A German controlled France and Czarist Russia? Maybe India could still be under British control.
Let's see a 1700 AD-Start at the 1970s: A CSA along with a USA. A Capitalist Russia. Ottoman empire clung onto its Possessions in Africa, Arabia, and the Balkans. Spain not completely kicked out of the New World. A lack of French presence in the Pacific.
Also think in terms of world wars. The Seven Years War and the French Revolution could count as world wars. Not just WWI and WWII in 1900, unless a possible WWIII.
I think a 1450 AD start would be good though, but may be too many civs/ much more work.

Wow! I'm amazed - this just keeps getting better and better!

The Greek World would be absolutely incredible. I voted for that. 1 and 2 are good as well.

Rhye what else can I say? I will convert to your religion...you are the master

Hi Q-Meister, thank you once again!

To the others, let me point out that "1700 AD start" doesn't automatically mean a new set of UHVs set in the modern era. Otherwise, it would have to include a "New UHVs expansion pack", and be necessarily unofficial (no localization, thus an optional expansion)

Well it if won't offer new UHVs for some civs it'll be impossible to win a UHV victory with them (for example England who has a UHV requirement very soon after 1700, and also one which should technically be accomplished long before 1700)
Of course it would still be cool to have an 1700 start even without regarding the UHVs for some of the civs.

And wouldn't we change some civilizations? I mean, there's not much use for/ not as big as others for some of them.
-Carthage (except in the 1960s African independence)
-Khmer (Indochina and Vietnam war, but that doesn't seem that crucial)
-Mongolia (I don't see any use for. Independents if anything)
-Ethiopia (MAYBE, because of Italian invasion. But thats the only think I can think of on a world stage. Could be Natives, and natives could be more friendly, renamed)
-Greece could be represented as Balkan states and get independence in 1914 or earlier. 2 cities most doesn't seem like a big enough civ)
-Babylon: Iraq isn't important until 1980s. It could be split between Arabia/ Persia

Now for the new civs:
-Brazil
-Austria (I think they were important on a world stage from the 1700s to 1918.)
-MAYBE Argentina, or just give those cities to Inca
-Possibly the common wealth, instead of Canada and Australia. I'm not for it though. I think England should just keep them. Or France may get Canada as a AH.
-Zulu as South Africa, or just be the common wealth?
-CSA: Testing before we decide. If we do alter UHVs, I think America's should be to capture the new CSA cites. Or just have America experience mass instability and be done with it.

And representations:
-Aztec: Northern Mexico (excluding Yacutan) and Western America
-Maya: Columbia, Venezuela, Central America, and Yacutan
-Mali: Western Africa, pretty much the same in generic RFC
-Vikings: As Scandinavia obviously, but given a city in Denmark
-Romans as Italians obviously (Spawns in 1860). Germany would spawn turn after. Originally independents. could be named Prussia at start

And there has to be many civilizations that actually Rise, or Rhye's. It can't just be FC.
So Spawns would be (if included):
-America
-Maya
-Aztec
-Brazil
-Argentina
-Mali
-Greece
-Italy
-Germany
-China (independence at Monroe Doctrine)
-Egypt
-India
-Commonwealth.

That actually seems like a lot now that I typed it out! So the Ottoman Empire will be the new Roman Empire with Egypt, Greece, and Arabia (I don't think it should. I think it should only Rise if the Ottomans collapse (is that possible?)). Spain, Portugal, and possibly England (if we include commonwealth) will get wrecked from spawns.

I'm just throwing out my image of RFC 1700. I'm getting excited by this! But I'd be happy with RF: Greek World, too. I'm sure no matter what we decide, we will have fun doing it.

I agree with Zachscape. I figured a 1700 (or whatever date) start would let you play a colonial power from the original start date, or one of the countries that gets founded later (Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Canada, Indonesia, Australia, South Africa, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, etc.) really allowing you to see a modern world down the road with power centers that actually resemble today's. I also assumed that the structure of the game would be reworked but I understand if Rhye doesn't want to reinvent the wheel. I just wish I had the technical expertise to make some changes myself.

I'd say in 1700 you need a more diverse Middle East and Central Asia. There you have the Uzbeks, a powerful force in the 1500s and 1600s, less active thereafter but still independent till Russia's conquest in 1860s.
India might be the Moghuls. Okay. But what about the Afghans then (conquering Persia in 1722 and Northern India in 1840s). And Sikhs? (maybe Independents as well).

Anyone not too important on a world stage or a major revolution should not be a civilization.

ZachScape said:

Anyone not too important on a world stage or a major revolution should not be a civilization.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think we shouldn't aim for "400 civ because everybody want his own"
Concerning the 1700AD start, it would be really cool. A "first" version with the old UHV, while new UHV are being created/translated should do it, no?

Maaximillus said:

EU has been designed to be realistic (alternate) history game with historical world, Civ has always just been build and kill/go to space/hire alot artist with historical realism in some parts of it. AKA Civ has never aimed to be historical over certain degree, but EU aims to such historical realism that without player variable history repeats itself.

Uhh I wrote word historical too many times

Click to expand...

although in general I agree with your points, you cut my sentence when quoting it and significantly changed its meaning

Of course Ukraine needs to be in 1700 start!

No Ukraine/Poland. There are toooo many civs in Europe already.