1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Changed spawn dates

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by Leoreth, Oct 11, 2018.

  1. Leoreth

    Leoreth Just another kind of stoppable Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    31,415
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Katolis
    One other thing I would like to address in this version are spawn dates of the existing civilisations.

    Right now I can think of two civilisations that would be affected:
    - France: spawn moved earlier, to 481 AD
    - China: spawn moved later, but undecided on when. Either 2070 BC (Xia dynasty) or 1600 BC (Shang dynasty)

    I don't think changing France would affect very much, except help early Catholicism. It's mostly about adjusting their starting techs. China will have a bigger impact, but I think mostly for good. A significant problem with balancing current China is that their modifiers have to be good enough so they are able to perform well when starting from nothing, but not too good so they are not a monster in the late game. Postponing their spawn would not only be more accurate, but actually make them easier to balance and perform better overall.

    Any thoughts on these civs, especially the Chinese starting date? Are there other civs that need a different start date?
     
  2. Steb

    Steb Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    598
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Montréal
    The Maya, definitely. They currently spawn in 65 AD, yet the Maya civilization has existed at least since 2000 BC, and according to Wikipedia they built their first cities around 750 BC. I changed their spawn date to 750 BC in my Teotihuacan mod and it worked fairly well with minimal changes. In fact, I think giving more time to the Maya gives them a more interesting game.

    Not sure how I feel about changing the Chinese spawn. I always liked the symmetry of having a civ in 3000 BC in each of the 4 old world cradles of civilization, and as a reminder of the origin of the game (vanilla Civilization) I like having several civs start at the beginning of history. Also, China is the only one that spans the entire game, and I think there's value in that. Besides, there were people in neolithic China between 3000 and 2070 BC, and those people were definitely discovering things like mining and pottery and mythology. In many cases it's better to pick a date where an important state was established, but in China's case, since there's no one around to interact with the area anyway, I'd say it's not necessary.

    On the other hand, you bring good points about balancing them. And if the consensus is that China reached a point comparable to 3000 BC Egypt/Mesopotamia/IVC only in 2070 BC, then sure, spawn them then.

    100% agreed on France.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
  3. Leoreth

    Leoreth Just another kind of stoppable Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    31,415
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Katolis
    Oh right, the Maya. How could I forget them. I completely agree that they would work better like this, especially around the Calendar research goal.

    I was always reluctant to move China for all the reasons you mentioned. It's cooler to have them on the same tier as Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Indus. But what I've learned about Chinese history is that there are legendary accounts that go as far back as that, but we don't have written records or even much of an archeological record. Of course there were people in China earlier than the first historically verified state, but that could be said about many parts of the world. If the start is instead around ~2000 BC it would still make them the earliest civ to spawn, but the balancing would be a lot easier because they could be given a much more deliberate starting situation.
     
    Last edited: Oct 11, 2018
  4. citizenofdoom

    citizenofdoom Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2017
    Messages:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    Noooo, u ruined my Chinese Great Library, Sphinx, Pyramid and the Flavian Amphitheater of Luoyang.
     
    ezzlar, JHLee, Publicola and 7 others like this.
  5. DC123456789

    DC123456789 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,011
    Location:
    Canada
    What's the significance of 481 for the Franks? The start of Clovis I's reign? Personally I think 486 (conquest of Soissons and the core of what would be become the French state) would be a bit better.
     
  6. Crimean Lord

    Crimean Lord Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 23, 2016
    Messages:
    63
    Location:
    Russia The Mother
    In current version Russia appears so early - in 860 AD!
    Perhaps it's good for future Rus/Ukraine but not for Moscow's Russia
    I think there are two
    main ways:
    We can choose 1150 (because 1147 is first information about Moscow)
    And also we can choose late date - for eхample 1460 (Ivan III began unification of local small lands into one big State)
    P.S. In second case Moscow could be found as indepent city in 1150
     
    1SDAN likes this.
  7. Leoreth

    Leoreth Just another kind of stoppable Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    31,415
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Katolis
    Currently the Russian civ represents all of Russian history, not the Muscovite state.
     
    Imp. Knoedel likes this.
  8. merijn_v1

    merijn_v1 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,266
    Location:
    The city of the original vlaai
    I think that this can better be adressed if/when a Kievan Rus' civ will be added.
     
  9. Crimean Lord

    Crimean Lord Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 23, 2016
    Messages:
    63
    Location:
    Russia The Mother
    I understand:)
    First of all I mean: Russian State which apeared in 860 AD near the modern Moscow is not historically accurate
    on the other hand, I think that future big map and early Rus/Urkaine will fiх this issue
     
    1SDAN and Leoreth like this.
  10. Enyavar

    Enyavar Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Messages:
    140
    I first was shocked about moving the Chinese spawn, but it does make some sense.
    In the current release, China plays like an avalanche with a very tiny starting snowball. Making this snowball larger but delaying it a few dozen turns may be prudent. So maybe move them to 1600 BCE, give them two settlers, one or two workers to start with, and two archers instead of one, and thus have them start as the Shang Dynasty. Also, appropriate techs a bit further into the tree.

    Such an early France? Okay with me, but that means that the barbarian hordes (esp. the Hunnic Archers) have to be reigned in, which are currently overrunning Rome and which would then destroy France instead. Or, hey, maybe the Visigoths (in Spain), the Vandals (in Northern Africa) and the Huns (in southern Germany/Balkans/Northern Italy) could be made into enemy nonplayables like the Celts and the Seljuks? I found that the NPCivs are much less aggressive than the blackskull Barbs.

    While we talk about moving start dates, ever since the original RFC, Greece is waaay too early with their starting date. In Normal games they start in turn 50, which is... Stone Age, so I got no calendar years ingame. So, Greece gets to be older than the Phoenicans, who spawn really late in 1200 BCE. The so called archaic time of Greece is usually given with roughly 750 BCE as starting point. So they should rather start in turn 80 or so.
    Otherwise, if the early spawn of Greece is supposed to represent the preceding Mykenic culture (with a start roughly around 1600 BCE), Phoenicia should be moved to an earlier date. Assign them an independent city as capital ("Sur"=Tyros, or also Byblos, whatever, it could be founded some turns earlier), and spawn them in 1600 BCE, or in turn 50 together with Greece. That way, we can also get rid of the "Carthage trick", where the players unhistorically doesn't found Phoenicia at all but move their starting settlers to Carthage as the first action.

    Moving the Maya seems like a good idea.
    If you introduce the Kievan Rus, the Russians could be moved to a much later time... but I think there are no plans of introducing new civs, so I think the early Russians make sense.

    How would you manage this in the 1.15 release - migrating towards the coastal stone? Or was that playtesting in a 1.16 beta? Oh, well, I usually concentrated on teching to Confucianism as early as possible, and avoided pagan stuff like that.
     
  11. Steb

    Steb Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    598
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Montréal
    I wouldn't change anything to either Greece or Phoenicia. Mycenaean Greece (1600 BC) is an OK start date for Greece, and while the Phoenician city-states are older than 1200 BC, they were typically dominated by foreign powers up to that date.

    What is the significance of the 850 BC start date for Persia? The Achaemenid Empire started around 550 BC, and the Median Empire started in 678 BC. Before that, the Iranian area was dominated by the Assyrian Empire. It would make sense to push their start date to the birth of either empire, but on the other hand I wouldn't want to give them less turns, gameplay-wise.

    (Another consideration is that Zoroastrianism is currently founded too early—it should appear around 600 BC. Founding on spawn would make sense if Persia spawned in 678 or 550 BC. But that would also easily resolved by not giving Persia the priesthood tech on spawn.)

    The China change is growing on me, btw. I support changing their spawn date to 2070 BC.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2018
    1SDAN and Crimean Lord like this.
  12. Imp. Knoedel

    Imp. Knoedel Imperator Knoedel the Great, Glorious and Gracious

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,289
    Location:
    Bergdeutschland
    So do we just ignore that having only two civs in 3.000BC, both within walking distance of each other, makes accomplishing a Conquest victory trivial?
     
    DarkLunaPhantom, Alexius08 and 1SDAN like this.
  13. 1SDAN

    1SDAN Brother Lady

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,724
    The AI Harappans are not in because they'd mess up India's balancing, right?
     
  14. EdmundIronside

    EdmundIronside Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2017
    Messages:
    204
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI.
    I vote for 1600 BC (Shang dynasty) spawn for China. Isn't there some dispute over whether the Xia dynasty was more legend than reality?
    If you move the French spawn earlier to coincide with the arrival of the Franks in France, you might make the argument that the English spawn should be moved earlier to coincide with the arrival with the Anglo-Saxons in England?
    You could perhaps move the Greek spawn date to around 900 BC to coincide with the rise of the independent Greek City States rather then have them start with the Mycenae. I'm not sure how much the Mycenae culture directly linked to classical Greece, in the same way that the earlier Celtic culture in England and France didn't directly link to the English and French.
    I agree in principle the Persian spawn should be later. I was thinking of moving their spawn date in RFCGW which inherited this same too early spawn date, but am concerned about how few turns this would give the Persian Achaemenid Empire to achieve their historical heights, this brevity issue would be even more acute in DOC.
    I think the Harrapa should be AI playable as well as human playable. It shouldn't be too difficult to fix any balance issues, and it would resolve the easy conquest victory issue.
     
  15. Leoreth

    Leoreth Just another kind of stoppable Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    31,415
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Katolis
    Xia dynasty or not, the archaeological record for the Bronze Age Erlitou culture goes back to about 2000 BC.
     
    1SDAN likes this.
  16. 1SDAN

    1SDAN Brother Lady

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2014
    Messages:
    1,724
    As far as the Harappan AI goes, it seems easy to fix if not already competent. In general I feel that 3000 BC spawning civs should produce workers and settlers right away. Though the current implementation is a necessary evil so Babylonia doesn't steal the Pyramids, Sphinx, and Oracle before their historical civs even have a chance.
     
  17. freethink

    freethink Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2011
    Messages:
    115
    Location:
    Great Light House
    I actually thought about bringing the China issue myself, but I was just unwilling to take away their earliest game possibilities.

    I think if they are to be added, they should start with writing from the start, and somewhat better modifiers, also having them start with at least 1 chariot would give a Shang Dynasty feel to the game and give some early protection from barbarians.

    I think playing as France in the mist of Hunnic barbarians would be fun, provided that the player had a reasonable (but not total) chance of beating them.
     
  18. Lokki242

    Lokki242 That One Guy

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    975
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Okay, I went through all the civs and did some research and looking around and here's everything I think could be looked at or changed, and respond to other suggestions :)

    1. Harappa: Should be left as player only: their AI would only exist "historically" for about thirty turns, honestly unnecessary IMO.

    2. China: I agree with the 2070 spawn, looks perfect to me. :)

    3. Greece: should be left as is, the Mycenaean association is perfect. Plus, a later spawn leaves them at a MAJOR disadvantage for their UHVs and next to Rome and Persia, who would be spawning around the same time.

    4. India. Current date is fine, but is there any reason they spawn in Eastern India? The sources I've looked at seem to identify the Vedic culture as having developed in the Punjab region primarily by the time of their spawn.

    5. Phoenicia: Leave as is.

    6. Persia: I agree with the suggestion of moving the spawn to 550 BC for the founding of the Achaemenid Empire, unless there are gameplay reasons to keep them earlier as in the current version.

    7. Ethiopia: Current date seems to be based on the rise of various Ethiopian successor states after the fall of D'mt. The Kingdom of Axum as we know it, however, rose in first century AD. The current spawn is fine, but UHV3 makes the Ethiopia game aggressively long, so I wouldn't mind moving it to a later day.

    8. Maya: I agree with changing it to 750 BC.

    9. Vikings: I couldn't really find much reasoning behind the current date, but having them spawn at 793 for Lindisfarne doesn't really make sense either. Anybody else have any insight for why they spawn at 545? Also can we rename them to the Norse potentially?

    10. France: Agree with 481 AD spawn.

    11. England: If we're pushing back the French spawn, why not the English? The current start date doesn't represent much of anything; it's too early for the foundation of the Kingdom of England (927), the Norman Conquest (1066 as we all know), or even the ascension of Alfred the Great (871). As such, I propose bumping their spawn to the date of when most Anglo-Saxon kingdoms formed, in 525 AD. It would give the Norse someone to bounce off of too!

    12. Russia: The date I think is fine, but maybe we should move the location to Kiev.

    13. Mali: Like the English, they are in the awkward position of being too early for the actual Mali Kingdom (1235) and too late for most other states prior to the Mali, though in this case it might be best to leave it as is. I'd advocate for the 1235 spawn if it wouldn't make the UHV deadline VERY hard.

    14. Poland: Miezko was crowned the first King of Poland in 968, shall we push the spawn back to then?

    15. Inca: The Kingdom of Cuzco was supposedly founded in 1200. Current date is fine, can change it for better accuracy.

    16. Mongols: Genghis Khan founded the empire in 1206, might as well put them there.

    17. Aztecs: Everything I've read says the Aztecs only arrived in the valley in 1250, and it would potentially de-clutter the c. 1200 AD spawns if we changed it.
     
  19. Leoreth

    Leoreth Just another kind of stoppable Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    31,415
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Katolis
    For Ethiopia, I have considered replacing the third goal to reflect the Solomonic dynasty instead.
     
    Lokki242 likes this.
  20. Enyavar

    Enyavar Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 16, 2015
    Messages:
    140
    I really like the re-thinking of spawn dates, but can we please agree what the goal is?

    It seems that most civs are to be placed at the founding dates of the actual powerful kingdoms and empires, like persia, phoenicia, (now) china, egypt and mongolia. Ok, fine.

    But others are placed at the dates of mythological or predecessor civs, namely the greek (mycenids) and babylonians (actually, Akkad/Assur in roughly 3000-1000 AD, only afterwards Babylon). Also the Russians or the (previous) chinese start (neolithic era). The polynesians go into the same group, though theirs is a wholly different game concept.

    I understand if that is done due to gameplay reasons, but if the greek can't be placed at a historical date while most others ARE, re-thinking the UHV may be better.
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2018
    1SDAN and need my speed like this.

Share This Page

Ebates: Get Paid to Shop