Rhye's of Europe Civ Discussion Thread

[Squirrelloid]

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.

This list has received substantial feedback and has been altered to accomodate a number of viewpoints, which lends it some legitimacy. If you have *constructive* suggestions to make, please do so. Arguing that the civ list should be set in stone based on the first proposed civ list in the other thread is not a productive way to move the project forward, rather that's a good way for the project to die because we won't be able to do *anything*.

This thread was created because multiple issues were getting jumbled in the previous thread and it was losing focus. Similarly, the new map thread is an attempt to separate out map discussion. The existence of that thread doesn't guarantee that will be *the* map, only that its the current contender. Likewise, this is not *the* civ list, but is the best rough draft currently available.

Edit: Vince-G's last post in the main thread was on Oct 30th, about 1.5 weeks ago, and 5 pages ago.

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.

Those are also the people who are actually making productive comments and doing anything to move the project forward. And the one objection was conceeded quickly. They were also the only people to respond in a timely manner. (In particular, Mitsho originally was envisioning a 750 AD start, but conceeded the point. All those commenting at the time approved of the list. As the list went without substantive comment for a week after that, it seemed reasonable to assume it was a good starting point and move on).

If you would like to make a case for the Lombards as a civ, please do so. I myself strongly favor a pan-Norse civ, but arguments can (and have) been made for multiple Norse civs, and should not be dismissed out of hand, especially as some of those have been made from a balance standpoint.

A unified Frankish civ is like saying France/Germany/Netherlands should all be one civ. In terms of its people and the continuity of ruling title, there is a strong case for Neustria -> West Francia -> France. (I'll note that the Kings of France continued to call themselves Rex Francorum, literally King of the Franks, until the 14th century). Similarly, Austrasia -> East Francia can be supported, and East Francia -> Germany can be strongly supported. I've already proposed an idea of how Charlemagne can be handled with a timed event that effects politics in the area which was his empire (see main thread).

I'm curious how you think a post-charlemagne start would be any differently balanced than this? Instead of Neustria and Austrasia we have West and East Francia in virtually identical geographic positions. We still have Burgundy (possibly titled Middle Francia). The only differences I can see are (1) the "arab" civ is now starting, as are the Venetians, the Spanish (as Kingdom of Asturias), and the al-andalusians. This doesn't change the balance of power in Western Europe at all, and doesn't really change the balance of power for anyone else as they'd spawn with appropriate forces in a 500AD start. We've also skipped some of the defining events for the middle ages, like the Battle of Poitiers.

Finally, they're called the Dark Ages because the 'light' of greek and roman philosophy and education was lost from western europe, not because we're lacking knowledge of them. We actually have reasonably good information starting in at least the 6th century, especially in terms of politics and military conflict. Certainly no worse than the early centuries of the middle ages. We may know less about the role of personalities in those decisions, but that's totally irrelevant to a civ style game.

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 ?

What does the name have to do with that? If we call them France from the beginning they could still expand into Germany and lose lands to the Spanish or English. Nothing about the name of the civ dictates that they will unfailingly control something within the boundaries of modern france. We can motivate players to do so by structuring an appropriate UHV, and motivate the AI to do so by giving it a strong preference and cultural advantage within French territory, just like the RFC AI's behavior is controlled. Dynamic civ names is an attempt to assign historically appropriate names to civilizations, not to ensure that they necessarily settle their historical territory without fail. I mean, in RFC if you wanted to be really silly you could have Carthage found its capital at Rome - nothing is stopping you. And you'd still be Carthage and not Rome.

 

[Squirrelloid]

I have updated the civ list, notably adding suggestions for independent cities to it.

I have also moved Kiev and Genoa to full civs, in an attempt to try to reach a fully-enumerated (22+independents) version of the civ list. Most importantly, there is still room for 1 civ if anyone has any suggestions. Kingdom of Sicily is currently the best of those seriously proposed (Alternately, the Normans).

Let me emphasize that civs included is the far more important topic of discussion than name transition dates, the names themselves, and starting dates.

 

[Virdrago]

For an early Eastern European civ, why not Great Moravia? Or would it be gone too quickly?

 

[Ajidica]

If bulgaria or hungary isnt added, either should be added. There could also be the dynamic name change between. And I know that they are two separate and different civs, but they could probably be the same.

 

[genovais]

Based on the states and cities already slated to be included, I think the only glaring absence would be Prussia.

 

[onedreamer]

This list has received substantial feedback and has been altered to accomodate a number of viewpoints, which lends it some legitimacy. If you have *constructive* suggestions to make, please do so. Arguing that the civ list should be set in stone based on the first proposed civ list in the other thread is not a productive way to move the project forward, rather that's a good way for the project to die because we won't be able to do *anything*.

It has been commented by less than 5 people and I made valid and constructive arguments about a post Charlemagne start.

This thread was created because multiple issues were getting jumbled in the previous thread and it was losing focus. Similarly, the new map thread is an attempt to separate out map discussion. The existence of that thread doesn't guarantee that will be *the* map, only that its the current contender. Likewise, this is not *the* civ list, but is the best rough draft currently available.

Unlike YOUR proposed civ list, none argued about St Lucifer's proposed map, though.

Those are also the people who are actually making productive comments and doing anything to move the project forward. And the one objection was conceeded quickly. They were also the only people to respond in a timely manner. (In particular, Mitsho originally was envisioning a 750 AD start, but conceeded the point. All those commenting at the time approved of the list. As the list went without substantive comment for a week after that, it seemed reasonable to assume it was a good starting point and move on).

So if I say I don't agree with your proposal I am not beeing constructive and slowing the project, all right. I started commenting on the civ list later because I was waiting to see the reaction of Vince, a behavior that stands much more correct than just deciding stuff without the project starter, in my eyes, you have absolutely no right to blame me for this reason.

If you would like to make a case for the Lombards as a civ, please do so. I myself strongly favor a pan-Norse civ, but arguments can (and have) been made for multiple Norse civs, and should not be dismissed out of hand, especially as some of those have been made from a balance standpoint.

No, I don't want to make a case for the Longobards, I want to make a case for 843 AD. Longobards are very important in italian history btw, and italian history is important in european history, apparently more than the danish one, with all due respect of course.

A unified Frankish civ is like saying France/Germany/Netherlands should all be one civ.

But the Frankish civ was one civ, so it would be more correct historically. That's the main reason why the mod should start after Charlemagne

I'm curious how you think a post-charlemagne start would be any differently balanced than this? Instead of Neustria and Austrasia we have West and East Francia in virtually identical geographic positions. We still have Burgundy (possibly titled Middle Francia). The only differences I can see are (1) the "arab" civ is now starting, as are the Venetians, the Spanish (as Kingdom of Asturias), and the al-andalusians.

This is ONLY ? How will you deal with Italy for example, which was almost entirely in the hands of Longobards and Byzantines ?

This doesn't change the balance of power in Western Europe at all

Man, you are so stubborn in your points that you can't even read what I write. I was saying that a post Charlemagne start is more balanced than having the Frankish civ and the Arabs launching incursions in Occitania, both things though should be due in your proposed start if you want this mod to be historical.

Finally, they're called the Dark Ages because the 'light' of greek and roman philosophy and education was lost from western europe, not because we're lacking knowledge of them.

Who told you ? Do you see light in Europe in the following centuries ? This is a period of subsequent barbarian invasions throughout all Europe, kingdoms rise and fall and we know very little about them, since these people didn't appreciate written history as much as the Romans.

Dynamic civ names is an attempt to assign historically appropriate names to civilizations, not to ensure that they necessarily settle their historical territory without fail. I mean, in RFC if you wanted to be really silly you could have Carthage found its capital at Rome - nothing is stopping you. And you'd still be Carthage and not Rome.

You wouldn't have time
These countries changed names for historical reasons that may not recreate in the game, that's what I meant. Plus, having France called West Francia (half latin half english name btw) and Germany East Francia is confusing for the average player which is not so knowledgeable as you.

 

[Squirrelloid]

It has been commented by less than 5 people and I made valid and constructive arguments about a post Charlemagne start.

For the sake of delaying the inevitable, I am far more interested in the civ list than the start time at the moment. I don't think a 500 or 840 AD start will actually change the civ list at all.

So if I say I don't agree with your proposal I am not beeing constructive and slowing the project, all right. I started commenting on the civ list later because I was waiting to see the reaction of Vince, a behavior that stands much more correct than just deciding stuff without the project starter, in my eyes, you have absolutely no right to blame me for this reason.

All I'm saying is denying the legitimacy of continuing discussion is not being constructive.

No, I don't want to make a case for the Longobards, I want to make a case for 843 AD. Longobards are very important in italian history btw, and italian history is important in european history, apparently more than the danish one, with all due respect of course.

But the Frankish civ was one civ, so it would be more correct historically. That's the main reason why the mod should start after Charlemagne

Except within the Frankish civ are proto-french and proto-german civs. Neustria and Austrasia were politically separate more often than united. And Burgundy was even more frequently a distinct political entity in this time period.

Now, it would be a perfectly reasonable position that they could all start as "Franks", and have civs spawn from within them. The Franks would morph into another civ (presumably french, although Burgundy could also make sense). Examing that against a more standard multi-civ option would be an interesting discussion.

This is ONLY ? How will you deal with Italy for example, which was almost entirely in the hands of Longobards and Byzantines ?

Cities under 'Byzantine' control will start under Eastern Roman control. Others will be Independents. Possibly some cities will revolt from Eastern Roman control to Independent at pre-defined times.

Man, you are so stubborn in your points that you can't even read what I write. I was saying that a post Charlemagne start is more balanced than having the Frankish civ and the Arabs launching incursions in Occitania, both things though should be due in your proposed start if you want this mod to be historical.

I think we can start with multiple "Frankish" civs, as that will better capture the political dynamics of the period. Those civs will eventually become france and germany (and Burgundy - but it also starts called that), but they were infrequently unified even when nominally the same cultural group. (And I say nominally because you do have the split between Salian and Ripurian Franks, mostly mirrored in the Neustria-Austrasia split.)

And I want to see the "arabs" (Actually Al-Andalusians) launch an incursion into Occitania. Why do you think I keep mentioning the Battle of Poitiers? If you saw my trial suggestion for a "french" UHV, I wanted them to take Barcelona from the Al-Andalusians. Arab-Frankish conflict would be interesting.

Who told you ? Do you see light in Europe in the following centuries ? This is a period of subsequent barbarian invasions throughout all Europe, kingdoms rise and fall and we know very little about them, since these people didn't appreciate written history as much as the Romans.

The term was coined by Petrarch in the 1330s as an indictment of the post-Roman period for a cultural failure. It was used metaphorically, and made the Classical period an era of light because of its wealth of cultural achievements, and the one that followed (which he believed he was still living in) an era of darkness due to cultural pauperism.

You wouldn't have time

Ok, now I just *have* to try. You could certainly do it as Greece (but why would you want to?) My point is that non-historical boundaries happen - we can only attempt to discourage them. (Whoever heard of India attacking China with War Elephants?)

These countries changed names for historical reasons that may not recreate in the game, that's what I meant. Plus, having France called West Francia (half latin half english name btw) and Germany East Francia is confusing for the average player which is not so knowledgeable as you.

With the possible exception of Ukraine, I don't think any of them have name changes we would really be able to simulate the reasons for in CivIV. I suppose some (like Crown of Castile) we could do by cities held if such a thing is possible.

I wouldn't object to entirely Latin names. That's actually what they're called in English though, even if the second half is verbatim latin. (Heck, I wouldn't object to all countries being named in their own language and alphabet, but I would imagine that would confuse the heck out of a lot of people - myself included if i ended up playing, say, Russia).

Regardless, treat the name transitions and dates as merely data for now.

Priority 1: civs included
Priority 2: start time
Priority 3: Name transitions
...
Priority N: UHVs/UUs/UBs (need to discuss novel game features first)

So I guess my primary question to you is: Are you happy with the civs included (Don't think of them as Neustria or Austrasia, for example, think of them as France and Germany. The early incarnation is tied in with start time). Is there any civ you think deserves to be included and is not? Is there any civ (in the broad scope) included who you think doesn't deserve to be?

Based on the states and cities already slated to be included, I think the only glaring absence would be Prussia.

Prussia would be a mere blip at the end of the scenario. Not enough play time to make them worthwhile.

 

[onedreamer]

The term was coined by Petrarch in the 1330s as an indictment of the post-Roman period for a cultural failure. It was used metaphorically, and made the Classical period an era of light because of its wealth of cultural achievements, and the one that followed (which he believed he was still living in) an era of darkness due to cultural pauperism.

I believe your source is the English Wikipedia, from which you can take this:
"When the term Dark Ages is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" to us only because of the paucity of historical records compared with later times".

The point on name change is why do it ? If it has no meaning in the game it's pointless, it's meaningful in a History book, but we're not replaying history, we're playing a game, so if there is a well implemented mechanism for name change such as "event > name change", it makes sense, but changing name only becaues in that date in the real History this happened... looks a bit pointless first, and confusing to the average player who sees the name of civs changed and doesn't know why.

 

[Squirrelloid]

I believe your source is the English Wikipedia, from which you can take this:
"When the term Dark Ages is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" to us only because of the paucity of historical records compared with later times".

The point on name change is why do it ? If it has no meaning in the game it's pointless, it's meaningful in a History book, but we're not replaying history, we're playing a game, so if there is a well implemented mechanism for name change such as "event > name change", it makes sense, but changing name only becaues in that date in the real History this happened... looks a bit pointless first, and confusing to the average player who sees the name of civs changed and doesn't know why.

I only actually needed Wikipedia for the year. And besides, as the article goes on to say, we actually know quite a lot about that time period now.

The point is to be an historical simulator. And some of them may very well be tied to events (for example, if we do use a series of Charlemagne events to mimic the unification of europe under Charlemagne, then the change to West Francia would come about by the "Death of Louis the Pious" event, or something similar). We've barely discussed gameplay features, it seems ridiculous to object to extra data being listed solely because it isn't clear yet how or why that data should come into effect.

On a more general note, and to keep the project from horribly stalling, I propose we run with the civ list as is. Which brings us to the debate on what timespan.

I still stand by 500-1750, and no later than 1800. My reasoning has already been explained elsewhere, and as a quick glance at the proposed start dates reveals its perfectly plausible to start in 500 from a number of civs standpoint.

 

[Ajidica]

Call it the Migration Era. Technicly the term 'Dark Age' is obsolete. One thing I would do is look at the civs chosen for the European Middle Ages Mod scenerio. I have played the mod many times and it has good civ choices. I would have it start a 800 Christmas Day, when Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor. This way the Byzantines wont be to strong, it cuts down on all the 'barbarian' civs like the Vandals and Visigoths, and it shuts up this whole Dark Ages debate. Although if you need still additional help, look at MTW2 for civs and timeline. It is very accurate.

 

[Ajidica]

Double Post

 

[st.lucifer]

I'm for using the current civ list, with the possibility of adding the Normans in Sicily and Normandy (with a UP appropriate to the geographic split).

I'll second the 500 start date, and suggest that we run it until 1800. I think it's important to simulate the dynamism and chaos of that time, and I think we'd lose some of that with a later start. It might be interesting to run the scenario into the industrial era and to the first world war, but that's enough of a shift that I think we're better off leaving it alone.

I've been playing a game on the current map, after cleaning it and reorganizing the starting plots to those we had agreed on. Standard/BTS civ won't let me put all of the civs on the map at once - but I've been amazed at how, starting from their intended starting points, the AI civs have largely expanded into their historical areas. Now, they all started at the same time, which isn't what we're going for - but the outcome was remarkable. The Americans, playing as Switzerland, expanded briefly, lost a couple of cities, and went pacifist/neutral; India, playing as Venice, took the Adriatic coast, Sicily, and Crete; Japan as Genoa took the Piedmont region and Carthage - after several world wars, the map isn't as pretty as it once was, but it seems to work pretty well.

I think that I'm going to end up making the Maghrib and Scandinavia less city-friendly - as things currently stand, Sweden can support four powerful cities without much threat of foreign invasion, and that gives them a substantial advantage. I'd like to preserve the geography faithfully, but I think that gameplay will probably win out.

 

[Depravo]

England needs company on the British Isles. Is there scope for a separate Scots and / or Irish 'civ'?

'Netherlands' and 'England' seem a bit anachronistic from first appearance. I don't know what to suggest for Netherlands, Flanders being elsewhere than Holland. England should be 'Anglo-Saxons' until about 930AD.

 

[onedreamer]

We've barely discussed gameplay features, it seems ridiculous to object to extra data being listed solely because it isn't clear yet how or why that data should come into effect.

What is ridiculous is proposing a gameplay feature (in this case name change to Civs) but not accepting any question with the excuse that it hasn't been explained how will it work yet. Go on and don't answer my question about how will it work. In my probably silly mind, when I think of feature I also think how to implement it, because it's simply a waste of time to propose a feature if then it is not practically and efficiently implementable in the game.

On a more general note, and to keep the project from horribly stalling, I propose we run with the civ list as is. Which brings us to the debate on what timespan.

I still stand by 500-1750, and no later than 1800. My reasoning has already been explained elsewhere, and as a quick glance at the proposed start dates reveals its perfectly plausible to start in 500 from a number of civs standpoint.

Yeah, I suggest you take this civ list and go on with whatever you wish for your mod. I'll eagerly wait for its completion in order to test it (assuming I will be allowed to at least do that).

 

[Zipzapzup]

Well i think we can change the civs list later after testing and then have a look once more at the historical correctness. I think its now more important to get some things done so we have a base we can build this mod on.

So lets see what we have to write and what we got. I put this in a spoiler to make this posting a little shorter.

Spoiler :

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) Copy from Charlesmagne

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)Copy of Arabs?

North & Central Europe (5)
Norse: Danes (500 AD) -> Calmar (?) -> Sweden (?) Take this one?
Kingdom of Austrasia (500 AD) -> East Francia (840 AD) -> Kingdom of Germany
(920 AD) -> Germanic States (1260 AD) I sugest for the first tests we take HRE and redo it later
Lechia (970 AD) -> Poland (???) -> Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (1570 AD) Take this one?
Austria/House of Habsburg (1160 AD or 1280 AD) Take this one?
Old Swiss Confederacy (1290 AD) -> Switzerland (1650 AD?) Take this one?

Eastern Europe (6)
Eastern Roman Empire (500 AD) Its Byzantium, isnt it?
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) Take this one?
Ottoman Empire (1300 AD)
Umayyad Caliphate (660 AD) -> Abbasid Caliphate (750 AD) -> Fatimid
Caliphate (970 AD) -> Ayyubid Dynasty (1170 AD) -> Mamluk Sultanate (
1250 AD) Take this as Arabs?

Italy (3)
Papal States (500 AD) Take it from Charlesmagne?
Republic of Venetia (800 AD)
Republic of Genoa (1000 AD)

Additional Candidates:
Kingdom of Sicily (1000 AD)

So we have to do at least Venetia, Genoa and the additional Sicily. Of course only if we take the civs from other mods/moders. Otherwise we have to do Burgundy, Al-Andalus, Norse, Poland, Austria, Hungary, Switzerland too.

 

[st.lucifer]

What is ridiculous is proposing a gameplay feature (in this case name change to Civs) but not accepting any question with the excuse that it hasn't been explained how will it work yet. Go on and don't answer my question about how will it work. In my probably silly mind, when I think of feature I also think how to implement it, because it's simply a waste of time to propose a feature if then it is not practically and efficiently implementable in the game.

Hold on a second, I thought that this feature was implemented in the next RFC update? Nobody is accusing you of being silly - implementation issues are going to be a big part of this, and we're going to have to figure out what's workable and what isn't. If the coding involved to implement a feature basically involves rewriting the whole game, clearly that's not workable. If it involves adapting an existing feature, which is what I think we're all trying for, why not keep it under consideration?

Yeah, I suggest you take this civ list and go on with whatever you wish for your mod. I'll eagerly wait for its completion in order to test it (assuming I will be allowed to at least do that).

I can understand why you feel marginalized here, but please try not to take things so personally. At this point, all we're trying to do is move things forward - I don't think that anything is completely set in stone, but we have to make some assumptions in order to be able to get anywhere from where we currently stand. One of the first sets of assumptions we're going to have to make is based on the map; a second on the civ list. Are either of those final? I view them both as subject to change, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be working to develop the ideas that we currently have. If we have to scrap some of that work, that's perfectly acceptable. I mean, I spent probably 12-15 hours tediously translating the map 12 squares east - and I don't have any guarantee that we're even going to use it. If we have to scrap it and start over, I'll be frustrated, but it might not work out. Rather than have an argument that runs for weeks over what to do about the HRE, why don't you come up with a leader/city/title list for a proposed HRE, a UHV, UB, UP, and UU? If it seems like a better plan than what we have going for 'Germany', or if the HRE title being an AP function winds up being unimplementable, I'd be willing to look at the HRE issue again.

I mostly don't want to get stuck on any one thing. I think that there's enough planning and enough work to be done (and enough lack of formal guidance/leadership) that we're better off planning out as much as we can - we're still pretty far from putting it into code, and even then, how many times to do you have to code something before you get a final version?

I value your input, and hope that you keep contributing. I believe that this statement holds true for everyone else working on the mod - otherwise, the obvious interpretation is that a couple of Americans showed up, cut off debate, announced that they were in charge, and proceeded to run things as they thought they should be done - and that's not going too well in other parts of the world, so it probably shouldn't be encouraged here.

 

[SadoMacho]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=2821

Some nice (ans some lees nice) generic leaderheads for medieval (and ancient) civs. Could be used for the leaders of Neustria and Austrasia, old Engish, Celtic,...

I realy hope this MOD will come out. Your ideas all seem nice. Good luck.
I do hope you make a nice civic system. As Modern and ancient Civics need to be removed, you get the chance of differentiating the Medieval and exploration age civic real nice.

 

[onedreamer]

Hold on a second, I thought that this feature was implemented in the next RFC update?

A feature of name change has been implemented but to my understanding it's based on actual ingame events and not on historical dates.

Nobody is accusing you of being silly - implementation issues are going to be a big part of this, and we're going to have to figure out what's workable and what isn't. If the coding involved to implement a feature basically involves rewriting the whole game, clearly that's not workable. If it involves adapting an existing feature, which is what I think we're all trying for, why not keep it under consideration?

True, in general, but I'm not talking in general but on the specific feature of name change based on historical dates rather than on actual gameplay.

I can understand why you feel marginalized here, but please try not to take things so personally.

I'm not really taking it personal but I saw that my interventions are useless. The state of things is that those who launched this project are seldom commenting on other civfanatics ideas/proposals, and the (maybe obvious) result is that someone, who's very excited about it, is taking all of his proposals as granted and universally accepted, if I object or comment on something I'm either too late or too wrong, we even end up discussing on the meaning of the word Dark Ages. Given all this, it became pretty obvious to me that this project is now in the hands of Squirrelloid, and since I don't share his ideas and can't promote mine, I wish the project all the luck... I honestly have better stuff to do than look up what meaning did Petrarch give to the words Dark Ages some 700 years ago: I live in the present, where words can and usually have different meanings.

 

[Virdrago]

Bulgaria and Great Moravia both have more historical significance than the Kingdom of Sicily. Both can be like Babylonia in the original RFC... a quick UHV, and if you want to go further, you have a lot of adversity. Sort of like Burgundy.

Otherwise, from what I've seen in the civ list, unless it's Russian, it only seems to be added if it affected what today is modern, western industrialized Europe militarily somehow (namely France, England, Italy, Spain, and Germany). Yes, these countries today are important, but don't neglect the East too much; the Mongols can show up as a late civ (The Golden Horde); before falling apart later. They are also more important than Sicily. I would even argue against Genoa being more than an independent state. Same with the Normans.

 

[onedreamer]

uhm, how and why would they have more historical significance ?
Bulgaria was much less an independent state than the Kingdom of Sicily (or Genoa) during the scenario's timeframe, and Genoa was more influential in the Black Sea than Bulgaria was. England's flag is the same of Genoa (St. George's cross) because the English King asked and obtained to pay for this privilege so that English fleets would be protected by Genoans in those waters.