OK, I must make something clear. This is a Modcomp and not a Modpack. Whilst it'd be wonderful to have a modpack for this, we're sticking to the RFC mod as closely as possible, meaning some of the ideas here can't really be implemented. This is Rhye's of Europe and not the Big Europe Scenario (or anything along those lines).
The fact remains that its going to cover ~1/2 the timespan of the tech tree in the same number of turns as we usually go through the entire tech tree. This is a problem if substantial new content isn't added.
As far as I'm concerned, RFC is about sticking close to history, and adding certain features (notably UHVs, UPs as distinct from leader traits, and plagues/stability). Anything which makes it stick closer to history is a bonus, not a problem, so long as we can manage to implement it.
Again, we're dealing very much with the question of how many major civs we can reasonably have without the game gumming up (RFC isn't well-known for rapidity in the late game anyway). Also, Squirrelloid, your civ list leaves out most of Germany, but otherwise seems to be the same as the one I've drafted.
On the one hand, HRE == Austria/Hapsburg. On the other hand, HRE is a title, not a civilization. I really liked the suggestion in the earlier thread that HRE be a title catholic civs can compete for.
Further, there isn't really much *in* germany. The Teutonic Order is the closest to a German power in the relevant time period as we're going to get. (That and Austria). It would be great if every barony in Germany could be a non-playable civ players could talk to, but that's a logistical impossibility.
I hate to sound like a spoilsport but we have to think about ease of implementation and ease of play, as well as the fact that this is made essentially for RFC, and that RFC was not made for this.
I don't think i've suggested anything that would make play harder. It might take longer to implement, but reworking the tech tree could be accomplished over time - it doesn't need to be accomplished instantaneously. It should just be done eventually.
And this is made to be like RFC but for europe, not to mimic everything RFC does when its focus is clearly very different. No one is objecting to changing UHVs because we have to. As will probably become apparent during development, in order to make it play/feel right adding to and modifying the tech tree is also going to be necessary to make it play/feel right. (I'd like to see a medieval period that predominantly features heavy cavalry for a change, thank you).
OneDreamer said:
If you do anything more than this then it's going to be a different mod and you should think of another name and post in another forum IMO, to be correct towards Rhye's work and RFC's popularity.
As long as it has UHVs, plague/stability, and dynamic civ spawn, it'll feel like Rhye's, regardless of what else we add on to it. I can understand the arguments from simplicity solely for getting the thing going, but the nature of, for example, the tech tree, has no bearing on whether it'll feel like Rhye's or not. I mean, changing around the tech tree couldn't possibly make it feel any stranger than Rhye's reworking of the wonders. (Which was really bizarre when I first started playing RFC).
On another note, starting the mod in the merovingian period is a risk because what we know of this period is mostly a myth, also playing Clovis I means you would be playing the Frankish civ, not the French civ.
... The Merovingian Dynasty is generally regarded as the first dynasty of france and ruled over an area that was definitively within france as it exists today. Whether you want to count Charlemagne as a french king or not is your perogative, but he does start the Carolignian dynasty of France, which notably runs all the way to Louis XVI. If you want to count his rule as being something different, fine, but to disqualify Clovis as "french" because of it is like saying we can't have a Polish civ because they spent much of the 19th century conquered by someone else. The franks just became the french. (Heck, we even refer to the language they spoke as old french).
Civ List
I think you guys are forgetting the nature of RFC, specifically of the rise and fall of civs. It would be better to start thinking of how many civs at once we want to be playable (especially important for the multiplayer), once we know this we can determine which are playable, which are minor, and when should they spawn etc.
So where are the problems in my civ list? Would you like me to list spawn dates for all of them too? (I might have some trouble in Eastern Europe and Italy, but the rest? no problem). And all of them would be playable simultaneously if it came to that.
@Other Civ Lists:
I really don't think Ireland/Scotland deserve to be a playable civ. They're really ultimately most significant as part of an English -> British civ; heck, GB was ruled by a Scottish king for awhile. Some dynamic civ names (England -> Great Britain) would cover them just fine. I suppose I'd entertain arguments why they deserve to be their own civ, cause i'm not seeing it. (I do see England having a lot of problems with Independent city-states until they conquer the British Isles, and that's probably the best way to handle them).
I also really object to HRE as a civ. Its not. Its a title (see above). And having HRE and Austria at the same time will be really confusing. Teutonic Knights really are the unified Germanic power of this period outside of the House of Hapsburg/Austria.
No objections to Switzerland or Serbia (though it looks like Serbia got the whack in the last cutting).
I'm a little confused as to why Genoa gets so much hate. They were one of the most significant Italian city-states, and Venetia's major rival for control of commerce in the Med. Though I suppose I don't really care one way or the other if its Genoa or Lombard League.
And what's wrong with Occitania as an independent? It was more culturally developed than France until France convinced the Pope to call a crusade down on them. The only reason it doesn't suggest a playable civ is the same problem as Germany - lack of unification means it really needs to be a bunch of city-states.
So, ignoring independents for the moment, that gives me my initial civ list with mitsho's dynamic name progressions + switzerland, or Mitsho's list without the Celts and using Teutonic instead of HRE. (Ie, Mitsho and my list differ by Switzerland, Teutonic vs. HRE, Celts, and Lombard vs. Genoa). Which gives us 20 civs and 2 independent slots - easily room for Serbia or Ukraine or something else someone wants to make a case for.
Should be discussed:
Celts - yea or nay? If yea, why should they be included? What makes them worthy of being a playable civ and not just independents.
HRE vs. Teutonic vs. other - What's wrong with Teutonic Order as the Germanic civ? Isn't HRE already represented? (Austria/Hapsburg). Wouldn't HRE make a better title that can be awarded by the AP (or some other way), as it was historically? I suppose instead of Teutonic, we could do a Germanic States and have their UP be the Power of the Electorate, and toss this 'needs to be unified' criteria out the window. The leader should be Frederick Barbarossa. (and i probably spelled that wrong). It deserves mentioning that there is no good way to cause the 30 years war to happen since we simply can't make that many German civs, so accepting that they weren't really unified and letting them be a civ anyway may be the best policy. Thoughts?
I think we're actually really close to a civ list. Now I just need to go peruse how many of those UHVs have proposals from the previous incarnation of this project.
The Teutonic Order is for me just too minor (it didn't last nor ressurect as it had no 'population' basis in its region) and much more important, it is too far East. I'd like to have *something* in Germany, although I am not quite sure what... I thus like your Germanic States option. The Thirty years War can be made by a Austria/Habsburg versus Germanic States then... 
? And the Kieven Rus were quite influential.
rague
