Civs discussion thread

[Jet]

Barbarians attack, Independents don't.

I don't see the value of that here.

 

[BurnEmDown]

Well you see, Independents are there (gameplay-wise) to block the other civs from settling the regions with ease, instead they must conquer these regions.
Barbarians however provide actual threat to the civ and it must build troops to defend even if it doesn't wish to expand towards their direction (and might capture the city just to raze it to prevent more barbarians).

 

[Jet]

So what?

 

[kairob]

So thats why we should have independents.

 

[Jet]

Why would you want that in this scenario?

 

[mitsho]

What's the other option? Letting civ collapse into Barbarian cities makes the barbs only stronger creating a snowball effect erasing all civs...

 

[Rhye]

But Rhye, you haven't answered one of my basic questions: How do you plan to handle Byzantium? And how do you plan to model the roman and Alexandrian conquests and - in the latter case - their offspring empires?

Maybe Byzantium and Seleucia could both be set as no-playable civs, which will only appear in case of empire split after a certain year.
But I already imagine modmods for making them playable, especially Byzantium...

 

[Wessel V1]

Possibly, but it is easier for the AI to conquer barbarian cities than independent cities. So, it is more likely that somebody retakes the area soon. Also, I think that expansion instability, or perhaps only the instability for expanding into foreign territory, should be much lower in RFC:GW.

EDIT: answer to mitsho..

 

[Bonci]

I think that it would be great have 1 or maybe 2 playable germanic tribes late in the game (like franks,visigoths,vandals).
They had powerful kingdoms that lasted many years and they would be very interesting to play in my opinion (try to conquer roman territories, resist the hun hordes).
So maybe the endgame could become more exciting...

 

[onedreamer]

I second Bonci, there should be more civs playable in the different eras and not too close geographically, so that the player can have decent goals. I would scrap both Phoenicians (or Carthaginians) and Israel for this reason.
About the mesopotamian civs, if you're going to have only one then I would name is Assirobabylonians and give them mixed leaders/goals/UB/UU, or just give them mixed leaders and change names according to the leader.

 

[ZachScape]

I think Babylon's or/and Assyria's UP should be the Power of Assimilation. If there is one thing my Global9 teacher branded into my brain was Cultural Diffusion in ancient Mesopotamia, especially in the development of iron working.

 

[Bonci]

I would scrap both Phoenicians (or Carthaginians) and Israel for this reason.

yep...talking in civilization terms I don't see a reason to keep israel as a civ...there is room for maybe 2 cities and then? They never had a large kingdom and they never tried to conquer anything relevant but with this map they are an obstacle for many other civs...
Ok they founded judaism but that could be made like in standard RFC with an indipendend city...

phoenicians could be an interesting early colonizing civ instead...

 

[BurnEmDown]

:\ I was really looking forward to playing Israel. I'm sure if anyone can make them into an interesting civ to play that's Rhye.

 

[Úmarth]

Okay, so no Scythian civ - but will the invasions of the Medes, Cimmerians, Massagetae, Sarmatians, etc. still be represented by standard barbarian attacks?

 

[onedreamer]

phoenicians could be an interesting early colonizing civ instead...

yeah but then there is no need to also have carthaginians, we can use dynamic civ names. Also against Phoenicians I have to say that it's hard to think of them as a civ in Civ terms. They didn't have a centralized or even decentralized state, they were a civ only from a cultural point of view... very similar to Greeks, which incidentally aren't a civ in the Greek World mod for now.

 

[The Turk]

yeah but then there is no need to also have carthaginians, we can use dynamic civ names. Also against Phoenicians I have to say that it's hard to think of them as a civ in Civ terms. They didn't have a centralized or even decentralized state, they were a civ only from a cultural point of view... very similar to Greeks, which incidentally aren't a civ in the Greek World mod for now.

Ok, being partly Lebanese I have done a lot of research into Phoenicia and I can tell you for sure that taking out Phoenicia and making it a barabarian/independent civ would be a real tragedy as so much happned within time. For starters you could have Phoencia spawn earlier like 1200 BC and one of there UHV's could be to colonize areas of the mediteranean (there are about 60 Phoencian colonies scattered around the mediteranean) and circumnavigate africa (if there is a africa) or even be the first to reach england and setup open borders with the britons (or whatever) or even be the first to discover alphabet (which I would strongly recommand be one UHV) and then when the Carthiginans come you can have all the Phonecian colonies in Spain, North Africa and Sicily flip to the Carthaginans and there goal could be to continue to expand into spain or hold there colonies against the Romans (etc..). What I'm trying to say is that there is so much game play potential for both these civ's.

@Rhye
If in the end you do decide to keep Carthage and Phoenicia, I would be more then glad to help give you ideas and research on these two civ's UHV's, UB, UU and leaders, literally anything.

 

[onedreamer]

Ok, being partly Lebanese I have done a lot of research into Phoenicia and I can tell you for sure that taking out Phoenicia and making it a barabarian/independent civ would be a real tragedy as so much happned within time.

First, if you had done research in all other ancient civs, I ensure you that you'd think the same of each and any of them. Including the "barbaric" (in Civ terms) Sea Peoples.
Second and most important, I didn't propose what you suggest I would have proposed. I said there's no need to have 2 civs (Phoenicians and Carthaginians) at the same time if we can make the first become the second thanks to already existing mechanics in the mod. I would never think to make Phoenicians indipendents or barbarians...

 

[BurnEmDown]

I saw on your site that leaders were 0% completed, so let me start the discussion by adding some info about Israel: it's either David or Solomon for the first leader, here's the links for info on both of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon.
If we want 3 leaders for Israel then 2nd could be Jehoshaphat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehoshaphat, and 3rd probably Manasseh, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehoshaphat.
I picked the ones who I remember from school to be the most influentual (we've only learned about half of them, the other half didn't do any important stuff).

 

[Rhye]

you can start a new thread for that

 

[Omega124]

I personally would want to see (Please don't flame me for this) Saxons as playable. They were a very powerful group that conquered Brittina, we all know that, but they were thank important they should be put in the game (In my opinion, that is). Their conquests separated England from main Europe and into the Scavindanian world, which would stay so until the Norman conquests, just before an entire millenium has past (Okay, it was more like 700 years, but still).

I really think that separates the Saxons from the rest of the Germanic tribes (Technically, the Saxons were Danish anyways), who mainy rushed towards Rome. If they were a Civ, they would have peace and friendly relationship to the Germainic Tribes (Scince they all share a common enemy), but their UHV and UP would sponser an invasion of Britian instead of Rome, just like real life.

Maybe Goths would make a better playable Barbarian faction during the fall of Rome, I don't know, but I'd help with Saxons In terms of ideas if they were so choosen.