Civ Suggestion: Polynesia

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

OMG, if this could be implemented it would add so much flavour to the game IMO. I feel that as a civ like England, whether Tibet exists or not is irrelevant but as China it is relevant. The opposite is also true, European minor civs make no difference to civs like China and only really impact local neighbours.

That is incorrect.

Tibet is certainly relevant to England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_expedition_to_Tibet

 

[Hippo8085]

Similarly why Tibet has more a place than Scotland in the main mod is that Scotland is 7 tiles that will be filled by England while Tibet is 19 tiles that would otherwise be very rarely filled. I am thinking it is more a matter of space.

In addition, the 5 new civs can already do this, if they are set to 0 games, so they don't spawn unless you are a neighbor.

 

[NKN]

some time ago (when Baldyr's pyscenario was under development) I had an idea to use that tool to implement something along your suggestion.
It was based on the original RFC and it involved some civ slots that could be used to spawn minor civilizations in relation on what your civilization was.
For example if you were England you could spawn and see a scottish minor civ and maybe a burgundian one to ally with for the control of France.
And if you could settle south africa you probably had to face a zulu uprising.
But if you were to play Russia, Scotland and Burgundy could have been replaced with Poland and the Golden Horde.
They were not at all supposed to flip your cities but they were meant to add historical flavour to every game (with the conditional spawns of a great number of minor civs).

Unfortunately my poor python skills and some obstinate cdts led me to abandon the project

This sound like an excellent way of adding more civs without slowing down the computer too much.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

That is incorrect.

Tibet is certainly relevant to England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_expedition_to_Tibet

Everywhere is relevant to England.

 

[ImNotHere]

That is incorrect.

Tibet is certainly relevant to England: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_expedition_to_Tibet

Ahh right, I forgot about that. I shouldn't have used England.

Still, I'm sure that you understand my point. Minor civs on the other side of the world don't make much of a difference. When one plays a civ, local minors and all major powers are of concern. Thus, if it could be coded to allow for minors on the other side of the world to not spawn (or spawn as indies) in favour of a local minor, I think it would allow for more fun from a gameplay perspective while not jeopardizing the historical/geopolitical mechanics of the game.

 

[JiimBV]

Ahh right, I forgot about that. I shouldn't have used England.

Still, I'm sure that you understand my point. Minor civs on the other side of the world don't make much of a difference. When one plays a civ, local minors and all major powers are of concern. Thus, if it could be coded to allow for minors on the other side of the world to not spawn (or spawn as indies) in favour of a local minor, I think it would allow for more fun from a gameplay perspective while not jeopardizing the historical/geopolitical mechanics of the game.

This would be so ridiculously cool there's no end to the joys it would bring me. But it seems like an impossibly large amount of work for Leoreth, with far too much testing required to be balanced. Maybe I'm wrong though.

 

[Locutus_Morti]

To touch base, roughly half in favor, half against?

 

[Hippo8085]

With a small map rework to make Polynesia better, for. Currently the civilization would last forever and no Europeans would care. Hate to say it, but later game should be Europe centered. Perhaps add a few Luxuries (sugar?, dye?) on some of the islands for commerce/happiness.

Otherwise, against. As noted, the civ would last forever in a civ that should fall or be vassalized easily. There just isn't enough historical basis to keep it separate very long.

 

[Sikandar]

Hate to say it, but later game should be Europe centered.

What's the point of having a game about putting the destiny of the world in control of the player if you stack the deck in favor of historical determinism? The West being the dominant area of the world wasn't exactly an inevitable outcome.

 

[teriaky]

If other civilizations had to be added, I would suggest either the Swahili civilization or Brazil for a simple reason: they would add to the gameplay.

 

[Hippo8085]

What's the point of having a game about putting the destiny of the world in control of the player if you stack the deck in favor of historical determinism? The West being the dominant area of the world wasn't exactly an inevitable outcome.

It sort of was. Ever read Guns, Germs, and Steel?

I found it quite interesting.

 

[Sikandar]

It sort of was. Ever read Guns, Germs, and Steel?

I found it quite interesting.

Diamond isn't without critics.

 

[Sarius1997]

If other civilizations had to be added, I would suggest either the Swahili civilization or Brazil for a simple reason: they would add to the gameplay.

Brazil is already planed, Leoreth said he wanted to add post-colonial civs.

 

[archcapitalist]

It sort of was. Ever read Guns, Germs, and Steel?

I found it quite interesting.

soooorta. ggs shows how eurasia had a leg up on sub saharan-africa and the americas/australia.

not how the west came to dominance. and really the factors that led to the west rising above asia are not present in civ

 

[Lennon789]

I definitely agree that there needs to be some representation of the settling of the Pacific Ocean in this game. It would be fun to play as the Polynesians, but if there aren't enough people on board with that suggestion, there should be at the very least some indy cities out in the Pacific, which could serve as an incentive for European civs to establish colonies in the Pacific, as happened in real life. Who knows, maybe we can give Prussia a TC event that lets them acquire German New Guinea.

 

[archcapitalist]

for me, i'd like a playable polynesia because i think it would be a fun play. i don't really care to see polynesia when i'm not playing them. sure those islands were settled but not with anything that would require a city. if tonga has a city than france should have a few hundred

it would be more historically accurate to have cottages spawn on a few of them at some point, but it really doesn't affect gameplay much.

there isn't a city on every tile where people lived

 

[NKN]

I think Polynesia is a great idea, BUT it needs to be weak enough for other civs to override the Amphibious penalty late in the game.

 

[JiimBV]

I think Polynesia is a great idea, BUT it needs to be weak enough for other civs to override the Amphibious penalty late in the game.

NKN is right; the most important thing about implementing Polynesia is making sure they don't usually become overpowered. They exist for a long time with no major military opponents, and their colonization is in the very late game, so they have a wide berth for isolated growth. Luckily, their land is production and commerce poor, so I expect they will naturally be at least somewhat balanced.

 

[Pavel Chichikov]

Everywhere is relevant to England.

You hit it on a nail there!

Similarly why Tibet has more a place than Scotland in the main mod is that Scotland is 7 tiles that will be filled by England while Tibet is 19 tiles that would otherwise be very rarely filled. I am thinking it is more a matter of space.

In addition, the 5 new civs can already do this, if they are set to 0 games, so they don't spawn unless you are a neighbor.

Yeah, 19 tiles of mostly desert and mountains with zero opportunity to expand anywhere except in fluke games with Mongols and Chinese collapsing each-other...some Civ.
I've never pushed for Scotland, but they would at least have many coast-tiles, resources, and opportunity to take Ireland.
I think main reason they are not included is because they constitute a much to big "what if" factor for Rhye & Leoreth's game-design philosophy.

The whole 'Tibet independence movement' has been brutally, efficiently and very rapidly supressed at any sign of its appearance outside of Starbucks.
The seperatist movements of the Russian/Turkish/Persian-ruled Caucasus on the other hand...

Anyway. I oppose Polynesia because it would add negligably to overall gameplay and having them all represented by an individual leader is ridicolous.

 

[Wondering Kid]

My little bit of opinion towards this matter:
Although it would be nice to have Polynesia as a Civ, they don't really quite qualify as that. They were far too scattered, not as organized as say, Tibet (yeah, seems that not everybody likes them poor Tibetans) and have no "natural" enemies, so don't add that much. I think that a couple Independent cities all over their territory to represent Easter Islanders, Hawaiians Polynesians and Maoris. And some triggered event for European civilizations (and US) to make them try to take this settlements.
Maoris could be taken by Britain/Netherlands (not sure if the dutch had colonies there or not, to be honest), Easter Island could be taken by the Spaniards (to compensate for the lack of Chile as of now), Hawaii by the British (and later on, US as to emulate the annexation of Hawaii) and the Polynesia by British/French/Americans/Japanese (And I'm sure I'm forgetting someone there).
In conclusion, while Polynesians could be an interesting addition; they are not quite THE addition to RFC. So I don't fully agree with the idea of having them around as a fully fledged Civ.