Realistic Starting Nations Scenario v1.1

This has developed out of the discussions I've been having with various people about this topic. Everyone has different opinions about this so I've come up with something which I hope can be tailored to suit individual tastes.

It's still very much in the testing stage so nothing is definitive yet. At the moment I'm using a modified version of Marla Singer's excellent map, but I may well make a map of my own specifically for this scenario, a bit smaller and using a different projection.



I have modified some game rules, but I don't really think of this as a "mod" as such, I think it's better described as a scenario, although it's not really that either. It's basically a normal game but with certain nations crippled and some disallowed.

It can be downloaded here or from this page on my site (along with a few other things);

http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/civ.html

rsn_v1.0.zip deleted after 591 downloads.

I've made some small changes, primarily adding a strip of sea around most of the coastlines and removing mapmaking from the Celts and Japanese. Also increased optimum cities to 40 (to reduce corruption) and increased tech rate to 240 (default for huge maps) since it seemed a bit fast.

I've attached the file to a later message (page 2) because I can't add it to this one for some reason.

Paul

================
DESIGN OBJECTIVE
================

The main objective of this scenario is to begin the game with only the oldest nations, leaving the Americas empty, and altering the map slightly to prevent anyone reaching there until magnetism is discoverd.

Although this isn't strictly realistic, the reason for this is to recreate the "Colonisation of the New World" phenomenon later in the game, which never really happens in Civ games because America is over developed by the time the European civs reach there.

The American tribes/empires are simply represented by barbarians and goody huts, leaving the continents in pristine condition for exploration and exploitation by the European tribes. Of course, there's nothing stopping the Chinese and others exploiting the Americas too once magnetism is discovered.


MAP CHANGES
===========

I'm currently using Marla Singer's map as modified by Scipio. Further modifications are as follows;


Coasts, Seas and Oceans
-----------------------

I've made major changes here because I disagree with Marla's representation of them. Marla has used them to represent the depths of the water, and therefore produced a Mid-Atlantic Ridge of coasts and seas for example.

I instead think that the depth of the water is irrelevant, and instead prefer to use the literal meanings of the words. Coasts are exactly that, coasts, so they only occur next to land.

Seas correspond to real world seas, such as the Mediterranean Sea, North Sea, Arabian Sea, China Seas, Coral Sea etc. These are usually bodies of water that are enclosed by land on at least three sides, thus protecting them from major ocean currents.

Oceans are obvious, and do not have any "shallow" patches of water in them. It's still possible to go island hopping in the Pacific, but some islands are now more risky to get to, as it should be IMO.


Ocean barriers either side of America
-------------------------------------

In order to keep America inaccessible early in the game I've inserted ocean barriers of roughly 7-8 tiles wide on each side. I know this is not realistic but it's the only way to ensure that the "Colonisation of the New World" can happen later in the game.

Greenland has been shrunk slightly (resulting in a more realistic shape since the projection Marla used resulted in a very stretched Greenland) and Iceland moved further west as a result. This has created a larger gap of ocean between Britain and Iceland.

The eastern tip of Russia has also been shrunk so that it doesn't touch the edge of Alaska anymore. The Aleutian Islands are still there but they don't link up with Asia. Again this has resulted in less-stretched more realistic shapes, with a gap of ocean in between.


Africa
------

I've made quite a few changes to Africa to make it far less hospitable to colonise, and harder for the Africans (Zulus) to develop.

I've restored the native jungle so there are no nice grassy patches available there, you'll have to chop the jungle down to get these.

I've removed most of the wheat and cattle resources, but left the fish resources behind. Starvation is commonplace in Africa so I really don't think it should be possible to build huge cities there.

I've also removed the patches of forest that Marla added to the plains to simulate savanna because I don't think they were realistic (each forest tile represents about 10,000 square miles of woodland).


The rest of the world
---------------------

Most of the rest I've left untouched, although I've added more floodplains to the Nile and also the Euphrates.

I've added some extra patches of forestry in Europe and Asia, removed the Aluminium from New Zealand and added/deleted various barbarian tribes here and there.


NATION CHANGES
==============

The Africans
------------

In many Civ games, the Zulus often develop into an "unstoppable world power" as one person put it. Rather than excluding them and leaving Africa empty (and too easy to colonise, even with barbarians) I've decided to include them but to cripple their capabilities.

I've changed their name to Africans and changed their start location to southern Ethiopia, since this is where the Africans first originated (the earliest remains of Homo Sapiens were discovered in the Omo Valley, north of Lake Rudolf).

I've prevented the Africans from building any city developments, air units, naval units, artillery and workers. Due to the lack of available food this will prevent them from developing large cities. Even if they do, happiness problems will stunt their growth. They will be unable to develop culture and unable to leave Africa, except through Egypt (which is unlikely).

They will be able to build settlers and offensive/defensive units though, so they can expand and colonise much of Africa and put up more military resistance than mere barbarians, although they'll never advance as much as the other nations.

One key factor is that they can't build workers. This means that they'll never be able to build roads, irrigate land, chop down jungle etc. This will also seriously limit growth. With no roads they'll have no trade network. Although they do start with one worker, nearby barbarians will destroy it before they can build a warrior to protect it.

The lack of roads and culture will mean that the Africans will function like scattered tribes rather than a coherent empire, and should in effect make them rather like "super-barbarians" who are capable of settling and building better military units.


The Aztecs and Iroquois
-----------------------

I strongly recommend that you don't use these tribes since doing so goes against the whole design principle of this scenario. However, some people feel very strongly that they should be included so the option is there if you really must have them.

I've crippled both of them in the same way as the Africans, except that the Aztecs don't have barbarians too close to them so their one worker usually survives and is able to irrigate and build roads. Having only one worker does seriously limit their development however.

It may be that I've crippled these three tribes too much. Any comments or alternative suggestions welcome.


The Celts
---------

Much as I like the Celts (I am one), I think they should be excluded from this scenario due to there being too much competition in Europe. However, I've included them as an option for those who want them. I've changed the English into the Celts and left their starting location as London for now. In this way they can represent the Ancient Britons when the Romans and Germans arrive there.

I've made them religious and expansionist, starting with pottery and ceremonial burial. I've also given them mapmaking so they can build galleys immediately. This seems logical since they must have known how to build boats in order to get to Britain in the first place.


The Japanese
------------

I've added mapmaking to their starting techs too. Being an island nation I think early knowledge of boats is important, so they can try to colonise the mainland (Korea?) early on should they so desire.


Barbarians
----------

There are many barbarians on the map. Most were there already but I've added a few more in selected locations, like southern Africa (where the Zulus don't start) and North America. Also some in France.

They've been set to restless rather than roaming, so they occur in greater numbers than usual.

Most significantly, I discovered that the player receives a large bonus against barbarians, especially on the lower levels. The bonus is 800% on Chieftan level and 200% on Regent (which is supposed to be the level at which the player is equal to the AI. Only on Deity level is there no bonus against barbarians.

I've changed this so that there is no bonus against barbarians from Regent on up. I've set a 100% bonus on Warlord and 200% on Chieftan.

Some have complained that barbarians were too easy to kill. Well, they're not anymore!


THE MAIN STARTING NATIONS (9)
=============================

My recommendation for starting nations is as follows;

Romans (also symbolising the Greeks)
Germans (representing the Germanic tribes)
Russians (representing the Slavs)
Egyptians
Persians (also symbolising the Babylonians)
Indians
Chinese
Japanese
Africans

These nine nations give the best balance for gameplay IMO. There are too many nations available in Europe and the Middle East and including them all creates too much conflict in too small an area. This stunts the growth of the Europeans and thus gives too much of an advantage to the Indians and Chinese IMO.


OPTIONAL NATIONS (5)
====================

For those that disagree with my choices and/or want more conflict in Europe, then feel free to add any of the following nations;

Celts
Greeks
Bablylonians

For those that insist on having civs in America, then you can choose;

Aztecs
Iroquois


FORBIDDEN NATIONS (2)
=====================

Do not include these nations if you want to play this scenario in the way it was intended;

Americans
French

Having said that, the options are still there, so there's nothing stopping you from playing the game that way if you really want to.


CRIPPLED NATIONS (3)
====================

The following three nations are crippled, and therefore should not be chosen by the human player;

Africans
Aztecs
Iroquois


HOW TO START THE GAME
=====================

You must choose the nations you wish to play with before you start. See included Readme.txt for exact details on how to setup the game.


FINAL NOTE
==========

In order to play the game in the spirit in which it was intended, the human player should not attempt to reach the Americas before it is safe to do so. You might get lucky and get a galley and a settler across, but that would ruin the whole point of this scenario.

Any comments and suggestions welcome.

I've posted this to another thread but I wanted to get your thoughts. Is there any way to prevent settlers from building cities on tundra, just as they can't build on mountains? This would prevent the AI from settling places like northern Russia, Canada, and Greenland, and IMO would make the map/scenario more realistic. Thanks...

I was thinking exactly the same thing myself. I had a good look through the editor options but I couldn't find anything there.

Perhaps there's a flag that can be changed in a file somewhere? Maybe someone can find it if there is?

I also think that cities shouldn't be founded on desert tiles.

In my current game there are almost as many cities in the Sahara Desert as there are in Europe, with strings of roads and irrigation connecting them together. This is just plain silly.

I hope someone can figure out how to stop this.

Paul

I definitely like some of the adjustments you have made to Marla's map. The way it was set up before, it was way too easy for the european countries to make it to North America, way too early in the game (too much coast for the galleys to travel on). Because of the easy travel, that is probably why she said the AI settles everywhere!
However, although it seems logical to give the Celts and Japanese map making at the start, the problem I see is that it allows them to build the Great Lighthouse before any other nation had even discovered Map Making. The Great Lighthouse built before the Pyramids!?!? And any civ that did build the Great Lighthouse would be able to colonize the Americas well before any other nation.

It might be good to move the Great Lighthouse to a later tech to prevent an unfair advantage. Also, I agree that the AI should not be allowed to build cities on desert. There must be some way to make tundra and desert behave like mountains. Also, it's important to keep in mind that catapults and such are unable to travel on mountains. I'm not sure if this would make sense for tundra and desert tiles.

Why don't you make desert and tundra not have any food? As it extremely difficult to take food out of the sahara (i should know i've been there.) This alter discourage ppl from settling on unfit land.

I'm in a really bad mood today (my teacher gave me an unfair grade) , I'm going to be really annoying...

I'm half Viking (Norwegian) and half Irish.
It just so happens that both a Viking explorer (Leif Erikson, look him up), and an Irish saint (Brendan the Navigator), made it to the Americas before 1000 AD. As did Breton fishermen. AND there have been made subsequent expeditions to prove it. They found Viking settlements on Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. So you're not all right there. The reason they disappeared was because they weren't interested in staying. The natives were too dangerous. But I do see your reasoning, however. It would be boring if the Americas were colonized too early. It's more fun this way.

I'm half-norwegian, by the way. Yes, I knew about Leif Erikson, never heard of Brendan the Navigator, and there was someone else (Eric the Red?), that had made it to Greenland and Newfoundland and there was a settlement in Greenland (perhaps a few grassland squares should be added to a tip of Greenland). However in this game's setup, once a city is there it is there for good (unless razed by another civ), the AI won't ever abandon a city, and the barbarians can't capture it, just pillage it. But what I am is saying is from there it is way too easy for them to settle further south (just follow the coast), to let's say Cuba, Panama, or Brazil. The Japanese would have an equal chance of settling Alaska, California, etc.

map of Piri Reis (1513)





"The content of the map was amazing: it focused on the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America (!) and the northern coast of Antarctica (!!!). The most flabbergasting point is that Antarctic had remained undiscovered until 1818, but its northern coastline, perfectly detailed, was shown on this map drawn in 1513."

it seems America's were only a mystery for "western european" civilizations. There is also a theory that argues north america native tribes are Turkic nomads passed through the bering strait.

Erics dad was exiled from Norway as a result of a few harmless murders, and moved to Iceland.

Eric successfully got himself exiled from Iceland for killing a man (never learn, do they?) and, foolishly, headed west (must have had a bad sense of direction...). He lucked out though, and landed on what was at that time a green land. It's not really very green anymore, due to climate changes, but whatever.
His son however, Leif "The Man" Eriksson, went west again (I read somewhere that he missed Greenland when sailing from Iceland. It seems a bad sense of direction is hereditary too) and landed in Vinland, the land of vines, which is considered by most to be Newfoundland. His settlement only lasted three years though, an insignificant time period in civ III. They were literally wiped out by the Skraelings, the Native Indians. Talk about living in perfect harmony...

So I completely agree with the reasoning as regards the whole uncrossable thing. I said so the other time as well. All I'm saying is that historically we're not entirely correct here...

PS: Qelebex, it's not a legend. There was a time when the Bering Strait was crossable, and that was the last Ice Age. There was an awful lot of water caught up in those glaciers, you know. At that point, hungry hunters chasing their quarry ventured across and entered a completely virgin land. They WERE the original Native Americans. How else do you think they made it from the Great Rift Valley to Tierra del Fuego? They had to come from somewhere... There is also a whacky theory that european stone age fellahs sailed across in leather canoes. Believe it if you will.

There is so many claims by different people-
>Chinese-Buddhist monk described an Eastern Land, probably California by the description, jade sculpture found in Mexico!
>Japanese-I think this may merely be nationalist bullsh!t.
>Carthage-Coin showing an Western Land beyond the straights of Gibraltar
>Romans-Piece of Roman pottery found in Rio de Janiero bay, may have been dropped by early immigrants.
>Breton-Wild stories of an western land
>Irish monks-Many monks in the 7th-9th century seeked isolation from sin by heading the ocean, good description of voyage to an Western land
>Vikings-Claims of finding Vinland, west of Greenland. Scandinavian immigrant found stone tablet with Nordic runes on it-many scientists reject this as a fake, though not 100% certain. Vinland meaning wine-land, there is no wine in America, maybe Cranberries(?).
>Aborgines-Some people in the very south of Argentina have Aborgine looks and genetic, unfortunately, wiped out by small pox, accept the ones who were sons of European. Wiped virtually out in B.C. by mauraving American Indians.
>Turks-Dunno about this one,
>Egyptians-Egyptian mummies found with minute traces of the Coca plant-coca plant only found in S. America.
>Polynesians-Very possible due to there knowledge of the seas, though evidence found in America.
>Knight Templars-15th Century(?) trying to seek land away from persucuting catholic church. Picture of a man dressed in armour on a horse found somewhere on west coast. Colombus sailed with the descendent of the Templars, the ships he was sailing in, had the Templar sign on the sails.
>Asian-Thats not forget the original inhabitants. At very early age whilst the Alaska was connected to Siberia. There is traces of Caucasian blood in some tribes, but they are refused any chance to look at skeletons due to stupid ignorant "Native Americans". This is probably due to that they believe if they find non native americans, the governments will take away there rights as a minority group/original inhabitants. Stupid.

Has anyone else heard of any other people reaching america prematurely? Has any one heard recent info about burrows (earth mounds) on east coast of America?

Originally posted by Qelebex
map of Piri Reis (1513)It seems America's were only a mystery for "western european" civilizations. There is also a theory that argues north america native tribes are Turkic nomads passed through the bering strait.

Click to expand...

That's pretty interesting, but I've seen better including ancient maps of Antarctica's entire coastline. Which is only available to us now in modern days due to imaging techniques that can see through the ice sheets!

The image you've posted here - it could be argued that the coastline extending from South America was in fact, just more of South America's southern coastline, just depicted in a distorted way.

I for one agree that the Vikings did reach North America, and I think also that there was interaction between Africa and South America especially. A recent science article I saw somewhere suggested (probably, not the first time) more evidence for a Western Mediterranean island nation beyond the rock of Gibraltar that perhaps disappeared when world ocean levels rose after the last great ice age. It has been suggested that is what we may now know as the myth of Atlantis, and they could well have traded between South America and Ancient Egypt, the Meroë Kingdom and perhaps also early Greek and Latin settlements. There are other civilizations around this time that I'm omitting as I don't really know enough about them to say anything - yet!

I've played the Egyptians but renamed as the Atlantians before, it was quite interesting. My capital of course was Atlantis, and I founded Egypt and conquered the Babylonians!

Ash

Fascinating stuff this...

But seriously, the viking settlements in North America have been dug up, and loads of items were found, incl. coins and axeheads, etc. There is a statue to the archaeologist who did the dirty outside the Viking Ship Museum (biggest collection in the world!) here in Oslo. That Vinland means wine land is a common mistake. It could mean Vine-land, and vines (kreepers) grow everywhere. I also happen to know that the word originally could have meant a great many things (including "great flat open grassy land"), and has probably been adulterated by history anyway. So the viking colonies in America 500 years before Colombus are historically proven to have existed. The real question is how far south the vikings actually went...

Thor Heyerdahl (another norwegian) sailed across the Atlantic in a leaky papyrus raft called the Ra. The first one sank, allright, but Ra II made across, proving that there is a theoretic possibility of trade between the two parts of the world...
There is a museum for Thor Heyerdahl in Oslo as well.
The Breton stories aren't wild---they would sail off for long periods and come home with their boats loaded full of fish. They themselves kept their fantastic fishing grounds a well guarded secret, but they may well have gone as far as the Grand Banks, only a short hop from the eastern seabord really...

There is of course the ridiculous theory that aliens made humans in the first place and then scattered them at random throughout the world , but we don't believe in stuff like that.
Do we?

"starvation is commonplace in africa"

Actually Africa has enough food to support all of its inhabitants, but because of war, corruption etc the food cant reach everyone. According to Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen starvation is caused by despotic governments. Democracys never experience starvation.

So, what is the point of making all Africa starve?

Originally posted by ezzlar
Actually Africa has enough food to support all of its inhabitants, but because of war, corruption etc the food cant reach everyone. According to Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen starvation is caused by despotic governments. Democracys never experience starvation.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting point, because that is in effect what is happening in the game.

So, what is the point of making all Africa starve?

Click to expand...

But I'm not making all Africa starve, I'm just making the Africans starve by stopping them from producing workers. Without workers they can't irrigate the land and they can't chop down jungle to get the grassland underneath.

Also, since they're not likely to advance very much they aren't likely to change to a more advanced form of government.

When another civ colonises Africa, they can use workers to irrigate and chop down jungle. They can also build harbours to get more food from the sea and lakes.

What I have done is removed the excess food from Africa that would enable the Africans to build large cities. There is enough food potential there with irrigation de-forestation but it's not exactly overflowing with the stuff.

There are some good bits though, it's not all bad.

Paul

This is a beautiful idea. I love the idea of handicapping the Africans, Aztecs and Iroquois. Although I think that I will play with the Aztecs and the Iroquois in the game. There were tribes here when the Europeans got here after all.

I am currently working on my own modification of the Singer map. I have concetrated on making certain areas of the map look more like their actual earth counterparts. To this end I have redone Italy, Sicily, and Corsica. I have modifed England in order give the Brits some more room to work with. I reworked Greenland, placing mostly mountains with a touch of grassland around the southern and southeastern edges. I have reworked the Great Lakes Region of the United States. I am from Green Bay, Wisconsin (thats the state just to the left of lake Michigan, for those of you out there who are a little rusty on your U.S. states) originally and I'm sorry but there was some work that needed to be done. I also rebuilt Norway and Sweden, Denmark and the Iberian Peninsula.

I realize that in some places i have put plains when others might think that grassland would be more appropriate but I was really going more for asthetics. There isn't that much of a difference between the two in the game, but the appearance on the map is amazingly different.

I am at work right now so I can't put a picture of the map in this thread. I will post a pic when I get home.

My next task will be to take a look at what you have done with your map and try and combine the two.

Like I said, i love this idea. I think it is the ideal way to play the game if you are going to play on an earth map.

Thanks.

Here are some pics of the Singer's Map after I have made some adjustments.

Here is the italian Peninsula

The Iberian Peninsula