A New Civ?

[HoriujiMan]

I would add Korea. I've lived there for the past 9 years (after living for 8 in Japan) and have gotten a pretty good understanding of its history.

Back years ago (I think Civ3 time), there was a lot of debate about whether Korea should be added in an expansion.

Just a few summary points of note:

First, unlike many of the civs in the game, they are one of the few that have continuous presence and cultural identity in a location for the past 3,000 years.

Second, in terms of size, Korea coverage really includes a sizeable area in NE China. During the Goguryeo Kingdom (one of the 3 kingdoms in Korea from the period of about 200 AD to 800 AD), borders ran all the way to Dalian, including ruling over different tribes in the north. Estimates even today of the indigenous Korean population in NE China is approximately 50 million or so.

Third, Korea (Goguryeo) held its own against the Chinese Sui Dynasty in a 20 year war that started in 598. The first major battle, which probably involved more than 300,000 troops from China, was a huge defeat for the Sui.

Fourth, they had reasonable technology up through the early middle ages in science and metal arts (e.g. moveable metal type about 80 years before Gutenberg's bible). In terms of religion and culture spreading, it was the primary pathway of various things to Japan, particularly Buddhism.

Fifth, Korea's decline (in my personal view) was primarily due to total adoption of Confucianism in the Joseon period (starting from 1392) resulting in a more or less very inward looking society where change and innovation was significantly dampened. So, the logical extensions were quasi-vassalage with the Mongols. Even with that, they were able to come up with the idea of iron clad cannon boats in 1598 to more or less destroy the Japanese support fleets in Hideyoshi's invasion of that period.

Well, I could go on, but no need to throw so much stuff up on the board. Having Korea in the early part of the game would make for some interesting balances vis a vie China and Japan.

 

[D. Minky]

I want to see a return of the Civs that were cut from Warlords... Zulu and Celts... I understand they didn't play a major role historically, but we have art, buildings, leaderheads, music, and units for them... it's a shame to just cut them like that. I love that Babylon was added, but not by deleting two pieces of flavor from the mod.

Even if they're civs that are doomed to fail (or can only be won with *very* skilled players), I'd like to see them come back!

 

[LuKo]

If Celts would be included as a major nation France would have to be excluded. BTW: Poland have "art, buildings, leaderheads, music, and units" and don't need exluding any civ...

 

[mitsho]

Celts: wrong place sorry,
Zulu: No chance to win as too late, would somehow destroy the barreness of the African continent for colonization (as North America and only as a Major civ)

This are arguments stated by Rhye. I agree that a conclusion would be that the African continent thus needs to be more rewardingly (at the coasts). We'll see.

Korea: It's reasonable, BUT the map does not suit them, it would have to be redesigned/atm the area is too small. This would mean too much work that is at first put into other things. But I too would be in favour of Korea.

mfG mitsho

 

[Spearthrower]

I fully and wholeheartedly concur with Horiuji's assesment of the importance of Korea in the region but I also doubt their viability within Rhye's mod. They will have too much of an impact on the region, forcing Japan to even more prolific expansion into the Indonesian archipelago and China and Korea would end up in conflict with only one surviving, thereby ensuring that the addition was in all practicality worthless.

We need to look at places where there are no civs, not squeezing them in where there are and we need to base the choice solely upon game requirements initially then look for appropriate historically realistic requirements after.

 

[fearuin]

I've voted for Africa, but I'm agree to have new civilizations on South America, and South East Asia. Along the thread it has appeared some interesting ideas, some of them were proposed by me in other thread, the "nations" one. This one seems a far more right place to talk about this, so I'll sumarize them:
1.- Portugal. My idea is have them spawn on 1640, the date of their independence from Spain. The idea is that their spawning area will cover several areas of four continents. They will ask for Lisboa or Faro (the cities that are Portuguese historically and most time the AI founds), and also for any cities in the areas of Brazil, central-east Africa (modern Sudan, Angola, Cabo Verde), and some spots in south east Asia: the city of Macau (usually chinese) and West Timor.

2.-Dutch. The idea of having dutch comes to fill South Africa and South East Asia. They will appear only in the Boer and Batavia areas. Maybe, also will have a city in europe IF it's founded. The idea is: in Europe they don't have enough land and power to become a civ, but in other areas they can develop their own soveiragnity. If Dutch appear this way, we may have some interesting historical wars, like the Anglo-Boer, and Japan will have more trouble in their imperial ambitions in the area.

3.-Munhumutapa Empire. It's way too simple. The only thing we have to do is to rename Zulus. Big effort? They will appear soon, and will fight Egyptians for central Africa, and, in the long run, Portuguese and English.

These are the basics. Some other ideas, not mine, but proposed above:
-Khmer: agreed. In history, they collapsed, but to later arise again, with the Red Khmers, on the XXth century. Probably they will face the same fate, being in the middle of India and China, but they can show an interesting challenge.
-Korea. I don't see enough place for them. Most of the time, they will be eaten by Japanese or Chinese culture, and dissappear fairly quickly. If they're lucky enough, they will be able to found a city elsewhere, or conquer a barb city, and survive. So, I think it's pointless to add them.
-Mayans. Interesting idea. They can be a perfect rival to Aztecs and Incans, that until Spain comes, have an easy, happy life. And most of the time, they survive. With some pre-columbine wars, those civs may weaken themselves enough to give Spain a chance.
-Native Americans. They have space, but too often I see Americans too weakened, fighting powerless against powerful Aztecs. Most of the time, Americans control Canada, and the Aztecs the US area. Weird, ain't it? Adding Native Americans as a civ will make things even more weird, making Americans to constrain on New England. If you want, add more barbs.

This is all. How long! Thanks to read until this point.

 

[Phallus]

3.-Munhumutapa Empire. It's way too simple. The only thing we have to do is to rename Zulus. Big effort?

They're already in as the "natives", so it would be pretty difficult.

They will appear soon, and will fight Egyptians for central Africa

I hope not! It's bad enough that the Egyptians reach Somalia.

 

[mitsho]

I wasn't intending to plagiarize, but sorry if I offended you

I agree mostly with you besides the Maya, not enough space and one more civ for the Spanish to take on. I doubt it'll come out good

 

[McA123]

I disagree wholeheartedly with any civs in South and North America, Africa and Europe.

Europe is plenty full already (and even if there were room for a Polish civ, which I don't think there is, a new civ should go somewheres where there's room, not where they will be squeezed between other civs).

Africa. Well. People have been suggesting the zulus and other central- or south-African civs, to "challenge the European colonialism." Have you all forgotten what happens when there's anything to "challenge" European colonialism? It doesn't happen. Ever. The Incans and Aztecs are prime examples. Has ANYONE ever seen the Spanish invade? Ever? I thought not.

And South America, same point. Why throw in another civ that no one will invade? A bunch of work and a slower mod for no reason.

North America. A civ here would hamper the Americans even more which they DEFINITELY don't need.

And just in case someone thinks Australia needs a civ, no. There's no reason to have a cive in Australia.

I didn't mention Asia, because a civ in Indochina would be fine with me. I've never seen it conquered by anyone other than the Mongols, Chinese or Russians anyways, so I guess it couldn't hurt.


Most importantly, I think that we all need to step back and take a deep breath. The goal isn't to cram as many civs into as many areas as possible. That would destroy history and balance. People are saying we should put in a civ in Africa or the Americas to challenge the Europeans colonialism. If you challenge it, it WILL NOT HAPPEN. There goes history and balance in one go, congrats.

A civ in Central or Eastern or WHATEVER Europe (I'm looking at you Poland) would just weaken Germany to the point that they would be near the bottom of the pack every game. There goes balance, and even if having Poland is historical, is it so important that it's worth throwing away the balance that we already have? I don't think so.

Sorry for the loooooooong rant.

 

[LuKo]

Including Poland should weaken... France. Why? Because moving Germany to the west will give them Aix-la-Chapelle (which was German city in real). Germany will have the same amount of cities but instead of 1 powerful enemy (France) Germany will have two weaker (France and Poland) and probably will be the most powerful European civ until colonial times.

 

[Phallus]

Most importantly, I think that we all need to step back and take a deep breath. The goal isn't to cram as many civs into as many areas as possible. That would destroy history and balance. People are saying we should put in a civ in Africa or the Americas to challenge the Europeans colonialism. If you challenge it, it WILL NOT HAPPEN. There goes history and balance in one go, congrats.

I agree with this. I wouldn't mind a couple more minor civs in areas such as South Asia and Ethiopia (maybe even Europe as long as it doesn't upset the balance), but there's no need for new major civs and including a minor civ for the sole purpose of making colonialism less rewarding is not a direction we should follow.

(and imagine the impact they'd have stability!)

 

[kairob]

I disagree wholeheartedly with any civs in South and North America, Africa and Europe.

just thought this looked funny out of context

 

[HoriujiMan]

Last comments for me on Korea because I don't like beating this issue like a dead horse.

Well, the conflict between China, Japan and Korea, caused by location proximity would actually be very accurate for the game.

In terms of culture domination, if Korea starts out a few hundred years before Japan (which would be correct as a starting point), I think the AI would maintain itself like you see in Europe even though there is a bit more room.

These two points lead to a fairly accurate UHV for Korea which would be focused on a) maintaining presence on the Korean peninsula (sort of a forced non-expansion), and b) not allowing other civs to occupy the Korean peninsula.

I thought this could be done with no map modifications. What I have seen when I played either China or Japan for the UHV is that it is too easy for China and Japan compared to the other civs.

P.S. And, the location proximity issue still fuels things today. One of the more interesting esoteric things happening between China and Korea these days is China's academic research attempts to show how much of the northern Korean peninsula was originally Chinese as a way of establishing "legitimate claims" over the area in the event of a collapse in North Korea. For those interested in this stuff in general re the contacts between Korea and Japan, web search "horyuji" (the correct English type spelling).

 

[mitsho]

Europe is plenty full already (and even if there were room for a Polish civ, which I don't think there is, a new civ should go somewheres where there's room, not where they will be squeezed between other civs).

Africa. Well. People have been suggesting the zulus and other central- or south-African civs, to "challenge the European colonialism." Have you all forgotten what happens when there's anything to "challenge" European colonialism? It doesn't happen. Ever. The Incans and Aztecs are prime examples. Has ANYONE ever seen the Spanish invade? Ever? I thought not.

That's why the "Portugal/Dutch - Out of Europe" Theory was proposed. It would give the areas (in addition to a South Asian civ) more "challenge" without destroying the picture of European colonialism. Ok, there are downsides ranging from "unhistorically in certain situations" to "big civ not possible, what use are minor civs?", but let's keep that aside for a moment. Nobody has yet reacted to that proposal and I'd really like an answer to that. Especially from you, since you didn't say a single word in your long rant!

m

 

[jewshin]

name of chinese capital city is "Beijing", which means "northern capital". similarly, there is "Nanzing", which means "southern capital". : then, where was "central capital"? what is their history of moving capital city location?

Beijing was not the capital city until AD 1404. it was just very important militaristic camp of northern 'border' of chinese kingdom. : then, which powers rule their northern outdoors until that time?

japan was never participate in 'the land of asia' until invasion of AD 1592 and very few years of modern age. they had been always living in 'islands'. besides, although there are some struggle between different historical views, it is true that there are no shape of ancient kingdom in japan islands until about AD 100. at that time, northeast asia had the superior ruler called as "Ho-tai emperor" who had 'always' punish chinese army in several times and conquer the wide range of n.e. asia. : then, what 'minor tribe' had that kind of leader?

during japanese invasion of chosun in 1592, japanese naval fleets was really 'demolished' and 'exterminated' from n.e. asian sea surrounding chosun territory. : then, how can you design the scientific and militaristic characteristics of korean army in the game? how can you do that 'logically' and 'reasonably' from the recent features of our game?

 

[SadoMacho]

This map shows there is enough room to add Korea. It is Korea at its biggest expand in the 5th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Three_Kingdoms_of_Korea_Map.png

 

[Ogedei_the_Mad]

name of chinese capital city is "Beijing", which means "northern capital". similarly, there is "Nanzing", which means "southern capital". : then, where was "central capital"? what is their history of moving capital city location?

Beijing was not the capital city until AD 1404. it was just very important militaristic camp of northern 'border' of chinese kingdom. : then, which powers rule their northern outdoors until that time?

Nanjing was the first capital of the Ming Dynasty; the capital was moved to Beijing for administrative purposes. At the time, the Mongols were on the retreat (the Ming didn't have full control over the region even in the decades after the collapse of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty), but they still were a significant regional threat. The Jurchens (who founded the Jin Dynasty several centuries earlier and later became known as the "Manchus" in the 17th century) later controlled a huge swath of territory in the southern regions of the present-day Russian far east, and present-day Heilongjiang and Jilin provinces in China.

The FIRST imperial capital of China was at Xianyang (at present-day Xi'an) in central China, which is quite far away from Beijing.

japan was never participate in 'the land of asia' until invasion of AD 1592 and very few years of modern age. they had been always living in 'islands'.

Some Japanese, basing their hypothesis on a stele dating from the time of the Korean Goguryeo kingdom, believe that Empress Jingu Kogo (a legendary figure from the 2nd century) may have led a military incursion into the Korean peninsula. During the Korean Samguk Period, the Japanese had considerable influence upon the Gaya States and a very close relationship with the Baekje kingdom. Also, Japanese pirates had frequently invaded and sacked coastal cities all along the Korean peninsula and the Chinese coastline.

Anyways, on the subject of the extent of the Korean control of territory, the Samguk Sagi text and some Chinese historical records mention that the Baekje kingdom made a successful incursion in the region that is now Hebei Province in China and that they held that area for some time.

 

[HoriujiMan]

japan during japanese invasion of chosun in 1592, japanese naval fleets was really 'demolished' and 'exterminated' from n.e. asian sea surrounding chosun territory. : then, how can you designed the scientific and militaristic characteristics of korean army in the game? how can you do that 'logically' and 'reasonably' from the recent features of our game?

I'm not sure I understand the question. If you are doubting the naval victories over Japan, you may want to find out about Yi Soon Shin.

The interaction between Japan, and, China and Korea, dates back to about 300 BC. The involvement with the Baekje Kingdom was problem the most interesting during the period of 300 AD to 600 AD. What may have really happened, i.e., whether the Baekje royals moved to Nara at the collapse of the Baekje Kingdom, is muddled. But, 1400 years later it was the basis for Emperor Akihito's comments in 2001 on the Japanese imperial dynasty connection to Korea.

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

It would be good if you could simulate the moving of capitals with the AI. Like telling them to build a palace in city x on turn y (If it's standing)

 

[jewshin]

thanks for add. comments above.

now i tell you the period of 'almost all of' kingdoms between china and japan, so called as 'korea' in these days.

Koguryo(known as 'kaori' to ancient china) : BC37 - AD668 (about 700 years)
Shilla : BC57 - AD935 (about 1,000 years)
Paekjae : BC18 - AD678 (about 700 years)
Pal-hae : AD698 - AD926 (over 200 years)
Koryo (known as 'korea' to mediaval europe) : AD918 - AD1392 (less than 500 years)
Chosun : AD1392 - AD1910 (over 500 years)

at the same time, there was so many 'rises and falls of kingdoms' in the middle of n.e. asian land, called as 'china' in these days. : is this possible that there have been kingdoms which have such a long history near china? is there any jungles, mountains, sea, or any other natural gap between 'china' and 'korea'? (is there anyone who can compare the periods of chinese kingdoms with koreans? why did someone collapse so frequently and others not?)

here's the main question: in the game, can you design this 'existence' without very potential militaristic and cultural powers through the whole history of n.e. asian area?