Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

[mechaerik]

Although it's true that Gran Colombia never ended up as one unified culture, I think having such a state to challenge Spain's (or other colonizer's) dominance in South America makes more sense than having European colonies in SA up throughout the 20th century. If their stability isn't good, they'd collapse into many small states anyway. Ideally I hope this civ could be to Spain and other SA colonizers what America currently is to England and NA colonizers. And if this civ is to be added, it prolly makes more sense to give them their own distinctive name. It feels better that way than to have Incans fighting for freedom against the Spanish in Venezuela.

In an ideal world, RFC SA could be really awesome. A separate civ, as you mentioned, could exist South of Brazil representing United Provinces of Rio de da Plata and later Argentina. This would make 19th century SA actually very interesting in terms of gameplay. There would Brazil (could be represented by Portugal, led by Pedro II), Rio de la Plata (led by Artigas), Colombia (led by Bolivar), Peru/Chile (could be an Incan respawn led by San Martin). If the the world is even more than perfect, Aztecs would even respawn as Mexico (led by Santa Ana) and so NA would have interesting conflicts between US and Mexico over the current American Southwest.

There are, as with any change, some negatives in addition to the positives:
-This might open up a floodgate of new civ requests. It would be hard to explain why Argentina deserves its own civ while Canada doesn't
-Also is the fact that Spanish colonial possessions split off into historcally interesting states that fought many wars with each other enough to justify that fact that Spain would get majorly screwed over more than any other civ by the addition of all these rebellious colonial states? Even though these changes would make historical sense, I do lament that it would bring to the end another world power in RFC (Spain), however ahistoric that world power may have been.

An Argentine civ as an Inca respawn would be a good addition, IMO. An early leader could be San Martin, and a later leader could be Peron (both of which have been made by Ekmek, unless Im mistaken).

 

[AOS9001]

Let's see all the Civs that still need to be implemented...

Civs for sure:
-Prussia/Germany
-Byzantium
-Italy (Rome respawn)

Civs that will probably be included as far as I can tell:
-Safavids as Persia respawn
-Conglomerate South American nation as Inca respawn
-Mughals as India respawn

Civs that may be included:
-Morocco/Almorhavids (spelling?) as Carthage respawn
-Korea
-Poland

Did I get that right?

 

[nutnut]

Brazil could be a Portugal respawn. Not sure how it'd work, though.

 

[civ_king]

*snip*
Good points. Adding too much post-colonial civs really would prompt more requests about Canada, Australia etc. I think a good test if a civ is worthwile is if you can formulate two UHV conditions right out of your head.
*snip*

I can't think of any for India so perhaps it isn't a goo litmus test

As nice as a Korean civilization is, could u put Prussia on ur list before them

From what I can tell, you've used 3 "useless" ancient nation's slots. One is rome, you are going to use Greece. What civs are you going to replace for Korea and Prussia? I suggest the Babylonians and the Phoenecians. VERY VERY useless civs to respawn (which reminds me, I finally had Persia respawn instead of Egypt).

And the real "Wonder heavy cities" are usually in Germany and Turkey. Could you add them to "Contested Areas" for Italy?

He is using the slots logically
Rome>Italy (same place really)
Greeks>Byzantines (Hellenic culture)

possibly
India>Mughals (Muslim Indians)
Persia>Safavids (same place same people)
Inca>Gran Columbia (South America filler)
Aztec>Mexico (same group)

Brazil could be a Portugal respawn. Not sure how it'd work, though.

seems like a good foil to Gran Columbia, could by interesting

 

[dcode147]

I think you're talking about different things here. I suppose The Turk is only against the Safavids being a civ on its own in terms of UU, UB, flag and color. I'd very much like to have them playable, so a "take control over Persia" popup will definitely appear, whether the civilization changes or not.

What's wrong with giving them a new new UU, UB, flag and color? (other than more work for you that is... )

If a Persian-civ is to be available for the 600AD start, I think it'd be more fun if they had at least a new UU and UB. Iranian history (or at least in the geographical area known as Iran) had so many badass empires (Safavids, Timurids, Khwarezmids) that I'm sure you'd be able to find many really good UU and UB ideas in any of those ages/empires. I don't think a separate civ needs to represent every one of those civs, but I do think that Iran was one part of the world that RFC severely underrepresented. One civ (such as the Safavids) would probably do justice to the region. As awesome as the earlier empires were, I think their existence wouldn't work well with all the work you've been putting in to coax the Mongols to be more aggressive to the west.

 

[Sandmonster1989]

I'm pretty sure that just upgrading the names of the Persian Civ would be fine. Different names for different eras... its a lot less work! I'd like to see the Byzantine, Korean and Prussian civs implimented and the HRE civ changed soon

 

[Leoreth]

As nice as a Korean civilization is, could u put Prussia on ur list before them

From what I can tell, you've used 3 "useless" ancient nation's slots. One is rome, you are going to use Greece. What civs are you going to replace for Korea and Prussia? I suggest the Babylonians and the Phoenecians. VERY VERY useless civs to respawn (which reminds me, I finally had Persia respawn instead of Egypt).

And the real "Wonder heavy cities" are usually in Germany and Turkey. Could you add them to "Contested Areas" for Italy?

But Korea is easier to implement because it has a lot less interaction with foreign territory.

I consider Babylonia, Phoenicia and Maya as civs that definitely won't have to return as themselves, so that opens three potential slots. They'll most likely go to Prussia, Korea and Sweden, I'd say at the moment.

I will judge contested/historical areas based on Italy's IRL expansion, which means that Greece and Yugoslavia is probably in, but Germany and Turkey isn't. If Greece's wonders don't suffice, you'll have to deal with bad stability

An Argentine civ as an Inca respawn would be a good addition, IMO. An early leader could be San Martin, and a later leader could be Peron (both of which have been made by Ekmek, unless Im mistaken).

Yeah, it all depends on if I'll use Inca's slot for Gran Colombia or if it's free for Argentina.

I can't think of any for India so perhaps it isn't a goo litmus test

For ancient India, the current first and third condition would've come to my mind almost instantly. Mughal India could have a condition related to Taj Mahal (like Maya's), maybe a certain amount of culture or having the largest army in the world.

What's wrong with giving them a new new UU, UB, flag and color? (other than more work for you that is... )

I was only making The Turk's point clear, which doesn't necessarily mean it's also mine

Thinking of things like UUs and UBs is the most difficult part, provided there are appropriate graphics for everything else. Many things depend on what is available here on the boards.

 

[AdrienIer]

Wouldn't the Italian spawn forbid the German UHV to be done (control Italy in 1870) ? Maybe it could be changed to a BY 1870.

 

[Leoreth]

Oh, you're right, didn't really consider that (I planned to remove Italy from Germany's objectives after I've made the Prussia change). I think changing the date to 1860 might be the best temporary solution.

 

[AdrienIer]

True. Is it possible to make an objective a by for certain areas and a in for others ? So Germany could just have by for Italy and in for the rest.

 

[Leoreth]

Of course, but it would needlessly complicate things.

And the problems with "by" checks is that they're bad for performance, because you basically have to check every turn if the conditions are met, and not just once in the "in" turn. That's the reason why UHV conditions that rely on rather complicated computations (like checking all cities in one area and counting their owners) are always "in" conditions.

 

[AdrienIer]

There are some problems with the tech tree, as you can have cannons before trebuchets, and gunpowder is way too early.

 

[SanePerson]

There are some problems with the tech tree, as you can have cannons before trebuchets, and gunpowder is way too early.

Gunpowder comes at an appropriate time, but cannons came later. Maybe the chronological placement of cannons could be changed somewhat.

 

[Cethegus]

[*] undocumented 1.6 change: the Levant is now part of Europe until Arabia spawns to encourage Phoenicia's focus on Europe

Until Arabia spawns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't "European" Jerusalem encourage Crusades? How high-value is Jerusalem in European warmaps anyway?

 

[dcode147]

If I understand correctly, Leoreth, are you planning on making there be two Scandinavian civilizations, one Sweden and one Vikings-> Norway?

If that's the case, I think the extra Mayan civ slot could be used for something else, like another civ, or maybe use Mayans for Gran Colombia and keep Incans to represent an Andean Peru-Chile civ (could be led by San Martin). Throughout the Middle Ages, all of Scandinavia was essentially united the entire time under the Kalmar Union. Afterward, Norway was essentially passed along between Denmark and Sweden every hundred years or so. Due to the RFC map being incapable of representing a Copenhagen/Denmark very well, I think they should all be represented by one Viking->Kalmar Union-> Sweden civ. Europe is stuffed with a lot of civs already anyway.

Maybe one way to settle the long-period-of-history-but-sorta-same-civ issue (eg: Viking vs separate Sweden civ and Persia vs separate Safavid civ) is to adjust Viking and Persian UHVs to account for the later civ achievements?

eg: Vikings adjusted UHVs: get x amount of gold from pillaging by 1050AD; Control cities in 3 separate civs's spawn areas in 1100AD (ie: 1 city in English spawn area, 1 city in Russian spawn area, 1 city in Italian spawn area would work); Kill more than 80 enemy civ units without losing more than 40 units of your units (this UHV will take a while and so while playing as Sweden, the player could try to finish accomplishing this).

To spice things up for civs that last a long time, maybe they could be given an extra UU and/or UB?

Not sure if you really looked into some of my ideas in earlier posts for modifying the warfare system, but could also give them a UU with lower strength but really high attack bonus versus almost all other units. That way Swedes will have a musketman good at killing other units but they will have to find other units (such as pikes) to protect their lower strength musketmen.

 

[dcode147]

Until Arabia spawns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't "European" Jerusalem encourage Crusades? How high-value is Jerusalem in European warmaps anyway?

What about putting Jerusalem in Asia from Arab spawn until 800 AD when Arab have definitely captured it. Then switch the Levant to Europe until like 1400.

 

[Leoreth]

Gunpowder comes at an appropriate time, but cannons came later. Maybe the chronological placement of cannons could be changed somewhat.

I agree that cannons are a bit too early compared to trebuchets. What do you suggest as a secondary requirement? Military Tradition/Science?

Until Arabia spawns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't "European" Jerusalem encourage Crusades? How high-value is Jerusalem in European warmaps anyway?

I just checked for the first time and the value is zero. I don't know if a high value would affect anything, but I guess if Jerusalem is considered European it very well might.

If I understand correctly, Leoreth, are you planning on making there be two Scandinavian civilizations, one Sweden and one Vikings-> Norway?

[...]

Maybe one way to settle the long-period-of-history-but-sorta-same-civ issue (eg: Viking vs separate Sweden civ and Persia vs separate Safavid civ) is to adjust Viking and Persian UHVs to account for the later civ achievements?

eg: Vikings adjusted UHVs: get x amount of gold from pillaging by 1050AD; Control cities in 3 separate civs's spawn areas in 1100AD (ie: 1 city in English spawn area, 1 city in Russian spawn area, 1 city in Italian spawn area would work); Kill more than 80 enemy civ units without losing more than 40 units of your units (this UHV will take a while and so while playing as Sweden, the player could try to finish accomplishing this).

To spice things up for civs that last a long time, maybe they could be given an extra UU and/or UB?

Not sure if you really looked into some of my ideas in earlier posts for modifying the warfare system, but could also give them a UU with lower strength but really high attack bonus versus almost all other units. That way Swedes will have a musketman good at killing other units but they will have to find other units (such as pikes) to protect their lower strength musketmen.

I guess you're right, it's probably better to use Sweden as a Viking respawn, everything else would only lead to a messy Europe.

I'd still like to make them a full fledged civ with own UU, UP and UHV, though.

 

[The Turk]

No the Vikings should stay, they would act as a counter to Sweden, and would represent the Norway-Denmark Kingdom, they should definetly stay in, or else Sweden will just absorb all of Norway as well. Currently they should just be able to take Finland, which is historical, and focus their attention on fighting Russia.

 

[mechaerik]

Sweden did rule Norway for some 90 years.

 

[Sandmonster1989]

Sweden also conquered poland.

>Matter of fact, so did the Germany, Russia, Mongols, etc. :\ (doesn't have to do with anything)