Can some things be moved to modules?

[Xenobenignitas]

I think it a little funny that the American Indians didn't have horses. Horses evolved on the North American continent and migrated over the Bering Strait into Asia (if this theory is actually solid). People from Asia followed the paths of herds of horses into America. Between the ice age and western colonization the horses became extinct in America

 

[Krieger66]

I think it a little funny that the American Indians didn't have horses. Horses evolved on the North American continent and migrated over the Bering Strait into Asia (if this theory is actually solid). People from Asia followed the paths of herds of horses into America. Between the ice age and western colonization the horses became extinct in America

Thats a long period of time your talking about...I doubt they had horses in America for hundreds or even thousands of years before Cortez came to the Americas due to how afraid the aztecs were of the conquistadores' mounts.(and guns)

 

[Valkrionn]

They went extinct in North America at the end of the Pleistocene; Same time as Mammoths and many other large mammals.

It's easily long enough that Native Americans would have no recollection of them, but short enough that they actually aren't classified as invasive; Their ecological niche was still open, so their reintroduction helps make the ecosystem more robust. Though if we really wanted to go that way we'd bring in Elephants and Lions as well...

 

[Torugu]

There is no such thing as making an ecosystem more robust. In the first place, ecosystem can't be destroyed, they can only be altered. Even if you turned the rainforests into salt lakes you'd only have changed the ecosystem from one that's rich in multicellular live into one that's dominated by bacteriae and archeae.

Now, if salt lakes are more desirable than rainforests is different question altogether...

 

[Valkrionn]

By more robust, I meant more stable, more or less. Though that stability doesn't help against climate changes like the younger dryas impact in North America...

 

[Nor'easter]

Sooooo ...... no mounted units for the Chislev, then? Would certainly be flavorful, and not a game-breaking challenge.

 

[Valkrionn]

Not really, IMO. Native Americans didn't have horses for geological reasons, not cultural ones; As soon as Europeans brought them, entire cultures shifted focus from farming to mounted hunters. And they were damned good at it, too.

In Erebus, we'll make use of some of the cultural aspects of different civilizations, but other things don't necessarily apply; I include use of any units in this. If there's a good cultural reason, fine, but Native Americans obviously adapted very quickly to horses.

For that matter, the Cualli and Mazatl would have to lose mounted units as well.

 

[Nor'easter]

Fair enough. I suppose one could come up with some lore-based rationale (e.g., they live in harmony with nature and don't want to "exploit" animals), but that would be probably be a stretch.

Anyway, as I wrote before, I'll look forward to seeing what you do with them, I'm sure it'll be interesting.

 

[Valkrionn]

Just to get it out there: They'll have a big focus on chants, mandalas, medicine men, things like that. We're focusing on pueblo indians and tibetans.

 

[arcticnightwolf]

... and nukes. Everything is better with nukes.

 

[Torugu]

If I knew how I'd definitely port a vanilla BTS civ for RifE. (Strength adjusted, Nukes at Divine Essence)

 

[Xenobenignitas]

100 Megathaum explosions

 

[Nor'easter]

Just to get it out there: They'll have a big focus on chants, mandalas, medicine men, things like that. We're focusing on pueblo indians and tibetans.

So despite the Slavic-sounding civ name, no Slavic or Kievan units? I want my Varangian Guards!

No, I'm kidding, of course, I know you're going to come up with something cool.

 

[Morkonan]

What Torugu said. The only other civs being moved into modules would be the Frozen (the rest of the team don't like them) ...

I just wanted to say, every time the Frozen appear, I put my faith in your comment above.

I can't stand them and, from a gaming perspective, they don't seem balanced and don't quite "fit" for some reason I can't put my finger on.

 

[Morkonan]

In general, on the discussion of Fantasy vs Reality civs:

This is a fantasy game. So, if a civ bears a close resemblance to a real-life civilization, that's no big deal. As long as it's not a direct enough analogue to a true civilization, suspension of disbelief can be maintained. The Chislev do break that a little bit, regardless of their mix of different abilities. They're American Indians and as long as they have associations there, they will evoke that image no matter how many unique and strange mechanics they have. As it is, for me, they fall into an "Uncanny Valley" of Civs in a fantasy game. I don't play them for that reason.

But, IMO, what one wants to do is invent "new" civilizations that hold to some sensible, internally justifiable mechanics, but are remarkable in their differences. For the most part, that seems to be the way most Civs are developed.

Still, the Civs that are the most entertaining to play are the ones that are unique and very different from your standard, run-of-the-mill play experience. That usually means they have to be very different in how they are structured and require special mechanics to be introduced. That ain't exactly easy.

So, we get Civilizations that are mostly human analogues with some game-mechanics twists thrown into the mix for added spice. That's fine. We are, after all, humans and some of the play we'd like to engage in has to allow for intuition or it's not, necessarily, as rewarding.

But, very radical civs can be rewarding, if they're done right. (IMO) If I had the necessary skills and knowledge of game mechanics, I'd love to design a few very radical ones. But, I don't.

 

[Valkrionn]

I think they only fall into that as a result of them being your generic, stereotypical "Native Americans". Teepee and all.

They won't portray that stereotype once I'm done with them.

 

[Nor'easter]

I just wanted to say, every time the Frozen appear, I put my faith in your comment above.

I can't stand them and, from a gaming perspective, they don't seem balanced and don't quite "fit" for some reason I can't put my finger on.

I just discovered that you can play without the Frozen by starting a Custom Game and checking the "No Liberation" option. Nevertheless, I'll be glad when the Frozen are off by default, but available as an option for those who want them in the game.

 

[Torugu]

Not sure what I'll do about the Frozen. I like the idea in general but it doesn't seem very well implemented atm...

 

[Mailbox]

I think the Infernal fit the role of summonable fallow civ that aggressively terraforms and gets population from death very well (the Legion gets population from death in a different manner, ok ). I just see the Frozen as icy Infernals, perhaps they play differently but I turned them off a long time ago.

 

[CarnivalBizarre]

I think they only fall into that as a result of them being your generic, stereotypical "Native Americans". Teepee and all.

They won't portray that stereotype once I'm done with them.

If you make them more unique and not a carbon copy I will be happy, that was what this was all about anyhow.

The frozen are boring since they are the same as the infernal, but with ice. Redunant is what I call it. But there you have the no liberation option that let's you avoid them, so that's no biggie.