Civs discussion thread

[Arkaeyn]

Rather than debate the merits of individual civilizations, I think that Mishto had the right idea with the map that demonstrated spaces and interactions. We have to look at a few different things when making these decisions:

1. Which civs were historically important
2. Which civs interacted with other civs, and when
3. Where is there room, and where should there be room?

The map Mishto posted included big open spaces in Asia Minor and to the east. Parthia, Pontus, Lydia, and maybe even Bactria would all fit there, if they would deserve to be in the game.

Here's Rhye's list:


Egypt
Babylonia
Phoenicia
Hittites
Israel
Celts
Athens
Sparta
Persia
Macedonia
Carthage
Rome
Huns
Byzantium
Etruria (not playable, minor nation)
Germanic Tribes (not playable, minor nation)
Independent (not playable, minor nation)
Independent2 (not playable, minor nation)

It's based on the 18-civ limit. Are we sticking with that?

 

[The Turk]

I also wouldn't mind seeing the Celts in the game (saxons is a later term) as either a minor or playable faction

 

[Úmarth]

Erm, the Saxons weren't Celts and the Celts are in there anyway.

 

[The Turk]

oops I didn't realize the celts were already added, so if they are already added why have the saxons? Plus you associate Saxons with the dark ages while this is more the Ancient/Classical period.

 

[Bonci]

but 476-600 actually are dark ages...

 

[The Turk]

But I would still have to say that its too small of a time frame. If we were going to add in the Dark Ages of Europe (which I think would be SUPER cool) then we could add the Saxons and the Muslim Caliphate at 633 AD, but since it ends so soon there is no point.

 

[Bonci]

yeah but there are the huns so why not one or two other german "barbarian" civilizations?

 

[Arkaeyn]

When designing a game, the question shouldn't be "why not?" so much as "why?"

 

[Bonci]

for the same reasons why huns are in I guess

 

[Arkaeyn]

The Huns came much earlier, and interacted with the other civs in the game significantly more than the Saxons did.

 

[Bonci]

I am not talking only about saxons...i talk about franks,goths,vandals...

Huns according to the wikipedia entered Europe around 370 a.d.
The Frankish confederation probably began to coalesce in the 230s.
Goths began to migrate to the Black Sea from the mid-2nd century.
Vandals attacked Rome for the first time in 271 a.d.
In 441/442, Saxons are mentioned for the first time as inhabitants of Britain.

 

[The Turk]

except out of all the other "barbarian" groups (I hate calling them that) the saxons are the least known. Why should we have them instead of a bigger group like the Huns for example. The thing is that there is very limited space for civs and we can't add a minor one which only had made its mark on history towards the dark ages/ middle ages.

 

[Arkaeyn]

The Goths are a possibility, I'd say. But I still haven't received an answer as to whether there's an intentional 18-civ cap.

 

[Metal Alloy Man]

But I still haven't received an answer as to whether there's an intentional 18-civ cap.

That was the original idea, though you could probably convince Rhye to think about changing it.

 

[Omega124]

except out of all the other "barbarian" groups (I hate calling them that)

Then call them Germanic tribes.

But honestly, the Saxons were important during the fall of Rome. They were the main force behind the fall of Brittina (But they did have help with the Angles and Jutes), and ruled it for SEVEN-HUNDRED YEARS. That's longer than the actual Roman Empire! Not saying that they weren't important is like saying Persia wasn't important in Greek affairs after they tried to invade it!

 

[Arkaeyn]

That was the original idea, though you could probably convince Rhye to think about changing it.

I'd be much more interested in changing the end-date. While ending at 600 CE may match up with RFC:E, it just doesn't make a lot of gameplay sense. It allows eliminating the Huns and Byzantines as well, freeing up more space in the 18-civ soft limit.

 

[BurnEmDown]

Actually 500 AD ending date would be more matching-up.

 

[Omega124]

I think making a larger DDL is easier than you guys think. The World 2009 Mod is using a 50 DDL, for a point.

As for a hypothetical situation where we do use the Saxons, the Spawn date would be exactly 356, or turn 249 (The first usage of the word to disribe the tribe we're talking about). The game ends at Turn 300, or the year 600. This would give them exactly 51 turns to do everything.

The Vanilla game ends at Turn 500, or 2020. This is where I have a problem. The Saxons were a lot more important then you think they are. Without them, Brittina would be left alone as none of the Germainic Tribes (This includes the Goths), Huns, or any major group had plans to attack that Island. By not including them, Rome can survive as long as they re-locate to Brittina..

As for the "Not enough turns" debate, you could change the game to be 500 turns like the vanilla Civ and vannila RFC.

 

[Wessel V1]

The whole point about the 18 civ limit is that more civs increase loading times, and in RFC (GW) it increases loading times a lot. I also rather have 300 turns, since 500 turns based on one or two eras makes the game feel a bit slow, especially compared to the quick advance in RFC.

 

[Arkaeyn]

Oh yes, I know that the limit helps with game speed, and I'm all for that. I was just wondering if it could go to 19 or 20 if need be. If we're sticking with 18...

Rhye's list again:

Egypt
Babylonia
Phoenicia
Hittites
Israel
Celts
Athens
Sparta
Persia
Macedonia
Carthage
Rome
Huns
Byzantium
Etruria (not playable, minor nation)
Germanic Tribes (not playable, minor nation)
Independent (not playable, minor nation)
Independent2 (not playable, minor nation)​

Here's what I'd change. By-and-large, civilizations in Civ4 and RFC are at some level expansionists. That is, they put pressure on or took over their neighbors. Most of these are, but not anywhere near all. Israel in particular stands out as a civ that should be an independent. I'd replace them with Assyria, a major power in the ancient middle east.

Etruria, especially as unplayable, just makes so sense. Well-defended Independent (or barbarian) cities in northern Italy would accomplish the same thing. I would replace them with an unplayable Sumerian faction, to build up cities for the Babylonians, Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians, and Persians to pick off.

As I've said, I'd prefer an earlier end date that eliminates the need for Byzantium and the Huns. Parthia would be the most welcome addition in such a case. They take an important part of the map, and if the game works well, would be Rome's primary rival in the end-game.