Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

[Linkman226]

You do realize the Arab empire wasn't standard in the sense that it wasn't very centralized right? By the time you got to Algiers and westward or east of Persia, local rule was far more predominant.

 

[fireclaw722]

LOL! Orka its fine, its fine, I tend to skim through posts as well at times!

[...Snipit...]
Ya well, its really easy to change anyway, and besides its Leoreth's mod, so I'm happy if he wants to do it, although I think a dynamic Italian civilization in 1860's would be more exciting IMO.

Turk, I get where ur coming from but the fact of the matter is that even now the Arabs never get close to their historical holdings (even with Leoreths changes). If we move the spawn date later the Arabs would have no chance of conquering their historical holding (in a sensible time period). If the Arabs spawn in 632 ad this means that they would only have 90 years to conquer/settle everything inbetween Atlantic Ocean and the Indus River. I don't think that its sensible to move the spawn unless something is done to make the Arabs expand accordingly

I have to agree with J.Pride here. You say it would be for gameplay reasons and not determinism, but all it would do is make it harder to create a more historical Arab Empire. It also makes the UHV's for Arabia much harder, and I'm not so sure about you guys, but I'm not to keen on another more difficult UHV. I do say that Italy should spawn later(1860's-ish), so Italy doesn't turtle around all of history. Also the Italian spawn could also function as a respawn, so that if Italy spawns with thier first spawn, and dies, they can respawn and takeover Italy(1850's-ish).

 

[J. pride]

You do realize the Arab empire wasn't standard in the sense that it wasn't very centralized right? By the time you got to Algiers and westward or east of Persia, local rule was far more predominant.

Your statement implies largely towards the Abbasids. The Rasidin Caliphate was very much in control of the Empire (don't take me wrong there were large revolts but when there weren't the Caliph's were the supreme authority). The Ummayads that succeeded them were also centralized. The Arab Empire began to fracture under the Abbasids who gave large amounts of power to local rulers. So until the 800 AD the Arabs were a centralized but after that independent kingdom in Morocco, Central Asia and Persia began to form.

There's been talks floating around for having Berbers and Fatimids.

Spoiler :

(I for one also want a Central Asian Civ but as ive seen nobody elso seems to be too fond of the idea)

Besides actually reflecting the division within the Arab Empire these civs would also make the Middle East a much more fun and diverse region to play in.

 

[The Turk]

Fatimids/Ayyubids/Mamlueks can all be shown by an Egyptian respawn. Even Modern Egypt which should spawn in the mid 20th century could also be an Egyptian respawn. And by the way, I think the Arabs make a fine empire, and I don't know if you realized, but I mentioned that currently in 3000 BC start they DO spawn in 632 AD, so why they don't otherwise is a mystery.

J.Pride I admire your want to create historical empires, but if you want to see more of that I would recommend you play Marathon speed, as it will slow down the dates, while keeping plenty of battle time.

Having the Arabs spawn in 600 is just plain wrong. BUT... having them spawn at the Hijra wouldn't be too bad either I guess would be 622, the Hijra or Flight of Muhammed to Medina. Although also inaccurate (since they were still fighting against the Meccans) it would be better then 600 AD. Also 622 AD is good (but not ideal) because it is the start of the Muslim calender, 1 AH (After Hijra). So that is my proposal.

 

[J. pride]

Fatimids/Ayyubids/Mamlueks can all be shown by an Egyptian respawn. Even Modern Egypt which should spawn in the mid 20th century could also be an Egyptian respawn. And by the way, I think the Arabs make a fine empire, and I don't know if you realized, but I mentioned that currently in 3000 BC start they DO spawn in 632 AD, so why they don't otherwise is a mystery.

Totally agreed; i wud just like to point out that maybe a way should be found so that the Egyptians do one of the following
a) Get conqured by the Ottomans (atleast half the time).
b are weak and become eager to become Ottoman vassal and later British vassals.

And if they do get conquered by the Ottomans they should respawn in 1860s as the Sultanate of Egypt (under Muhammad Ali Pasha)

 

[Leoreth]

I guess the Arabs are playable from 600 AD in the corresponding scenario because it would be ridiculous to have three turns of autoplay.

 

[The Turk]

I guess the Arabs are playable from 600 AD in the corresponding scenario because it would be ridiculous to have three turns of autoplay.

So? Why would that be a problem?

 

[Leoreth]

It isn't. Maybe Rhye chose it for symmetry reasons as well (four "from the beginning" civs for each scenario).

 

[Orka]

It isn't. Maybe Rhye chose it for symmetry reasons as well (four "from the beginning" civs for each scenario).

Elegance is nice. Maybe that's why the Arab spawn difference of only three turns in 600AD start doesn't bother me, even though it's correctly at 632AD in the 3000BC start. Anyway, China and India spawn ahistorically in 3000BC, too, and that's fine.

Besides spawn dates, the Arab flip zones also appear to be different in the 600AD and 3000BC starts? Personally, I'd want northern Egypt to flip in 3000BC start as well, to give a foothold into North Africa. Plus it's historical, at least if this map is correct:

Spoiler :

 

[Leoreth]

You're right - the restriction to the 600 AD was for the initial stages of the flip where the code wasn't "smart" enough to cope with the situation of Baghdad or Cairo being non existant, and then I forgot to drop it.

 

[jammerculture]

the whole argument is ridiculous. There were Arabs before they took to empire. The cities of Mecca and Medina weren't founded by the prophet. Arab tribes are described in greek texts! Come to think of it, Leoreth, the Arabs should spawn earlier!

Let it die, it's three turns.

 

[fireclaw722]

the whole argument is ridiculous. There were Arabs before they took to empire. The cities of Mecca and Medina weren't founded by the prophet. Arab tribes are described in greek texts! Come to think of it, Leoreth, the Arabs should spawn earlier!

Let it die, it's three turns.

...Arabs spawning in 600AD is just plain wrong...

Should I say more?

 

[The Turk]

the whole argument is ridiculous. There were Arabs before they took to empire. The cities of Mecca and Medina weren't founded by the prophet. Arab tribes are described in greek texts! Come to think of it, Leoreth, the Arabs should spawn earlier!

Let it die, it's three turns.

Umm... I'm sorry but Islam was not FOUNDED in 600 AD. Yes I know they weren't founded by the Prophet, my point is that the "Arab" civilization did not start until after the death of the Prophet. Otherwise they were divided upon petty chieftains, and completely divided. It was Islam that brought them together under one banner. And having them spawn three turns later, would make sure that the Byzantine human could have three turns to move around units if they wanted to. But overall this is mostly a historical problem. You can't have the Americans spawning in the 1600's JUST because the British were already there!

PS. Sicily should be an Arab contested province

 

[AOS9001]

Umm... I'm sorry but Islam was not FOUNDED in 600 AD.
...
You can't have the Americans spawning in the 1600's JUST because the British were already there!

Then we don't we simply have some kind of program that sets Divine Right to be discovered at 622 or whenever? Probably because it'd be exceedingly difficult to program, I guess. Well, it's an idea.

 

[Lord Ainsbirth]

Hello all,

I'm writing to share some ideas, based on my experience playing.

I realized that some IA civilizations don't reach their historical empire (some examples are Persia, Rome, Arabs and / or Mongolia): they should conquer by force their historical empire, but they don't. When I played with them I usually don't have to many problems (it's challenging but funny as well), but it's not very common to see IA historical empires conquered by the use of force.
Peaceful civs can create an semi historical empire (like France) but if the IA has to create an empire using the conquest, they usually can't.

One solution is to change the UP in order to give more units. These solution might be ok, but for human players it makes the UHV really easy.

My proposal is quite simple: give units only if they are IA controlled.
For example, Rome could have more legions for conquering their historical territory.
I would love to see a real 'Reconquista' in Spain, a real arab threat in the Western... why not to give some units to the arabs in the south of Spain by the 711? And in the south of Italy?

In these way:
1) the human player would have a great threat from the IA,
2) we will see more wars.
3) I think it an easy solution, rather than changing the IA core area, or the UP.

I hope it makes sense, sorry for my English!!

 

[Jusos2108]

To be honest I don't see what's the big fuss all about. None of the other religions get founded on the exact year, why should Islam??

 

[The Turk]

To be honest I don't see what's the big fuss all about. None of the other religions get founded on the exact year, why should Islam??

Because Islam in faction specific religion. Think about the other religions, they are either faction specific (Hinduism/Buddhism). Islam founded a civilization, it combined a people, hence the reason why Rhye had the religion spawn in Mekke.

BUT... how about we just have Islam spawn in Mecca in 632, thats also an option which I would be up for. Fair enough its three turns, but then how about just have Islam spread later, because as mentioned earlier Mecca and these other cities were already founded.

@Lord Ainsbirth

I like your idea, but I still think a Moorish civilization should take its place, rather than the Arabs getting far flung territory. Also I'm afraid it would unbalance the fabric of the game

 

[Leoreth]

I think I've made it clear that I don't see any problem in this three turns of difference.

 

[fireclaw722]

Umm... I'm sorry but Islam was not FOUNDED in 600 AD. Yes I know they weren't founded by the Prophet, my point is that the "Arab" civilization did not start until after the death of the Prophet. Otherwise they were divided upon petty chieftains, and completely divided. It was Islam that brought them together under one banner. And having them spawn three turns later, would make sure that the Byzantine human could have three turns to move around units if they wanted to. But overall this is mostly a historical problem. You can't have the Americans spawning in the 1600's JUST because the British were already there!

PS. Sicily should be an Arab contested province

Actually, I'd be fine with spawning America in the 1600's. All they end up doing is vassalize to a world power anyways.

Because Islam in faction specific religion. Think about the other religions, they are either faction specific (Hinduism/Buddhism). Islam founded a civilization, it combined a people, hence the reason why Rhye had the religion spawn in Mekke.

BUT... how about we just have Islam spawn in Mecca in 632, thats also an option which I would be up for. Fair enough its three turns, but then how about just have Islam spread later, because as mentioned earlier Mecca and these other cities were already founded.

@Lord Ainsbirth

I like your idea, but I still think a Moorish civilization should take its place, rather than the Arabs getting far flung territory. Also I'm afraid it would unbalance the fabric of the game

Okay, how about we spawn the Arabs without Divine Right(but leave them 3 turns from it), give them no flip zone, and see what happens.
Also, if you don't like it then just play the 3000 BC start, where they spawn at 632 AD.
I don't mean to be rude(I'm just not to keen on watching an argument over something silly as three turns), but seriously, why are we debating on three turns? What affect does it have on actual gameplay(in simpler terms; What's the point)?

I'm also not trying to say that the three turns is a bad idea, it's not, but I think that it shouldn't be implemented for the sake of the great person who made this modmod, Leoreth(allows for more time to work certain aspects of the mod).

 

[Leoreth]

Actually, I'd be fine with spawning America in the 1600's. All they end up doing is vassalize to a world power anyways.

Good point, I've changed Washington's personality to be more reluctant to vassalize.