Squirrelloid
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 263
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.