Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

[The Turk]

Considering the Landsknecht was Swiss and not an invention of the HRE, it would make more sense if the Landsknecht was available to everyone, possibly in the form of mercenarys.

AND ONLY FOR EUROPEAN CIVS! I actually saw a Khmer Kandsknecht, I almost fainted in my chair
But then I saw even more horrific sights, such as Incan and Aztec horse archers, I had to receive a heart transplant after that

 

[Leoreth]

wow wow wow! Lets slow down here!
Leoreth do you mind telling me what civs you plan to implement? Because I hear talk about Prussian UU's, Polynesia and Gran Colombia, and my mind is just spinning

Could tell us your future "big" ideas?

Okay, top priority for new features will be on:

• Expand the new rebirth mechanic to other civilizations, first for civs already there in BtS
  • Byzantium
  • Prussia/Germany and HRE/Austria (the former will be a rebirth civ, the latter the Germany we currently know
  • Korea
• Historical capital switches for the AI (especially Arabia)
• Better city placement in the Middle East for 600 AD
• More eastern wonders
• Rework of the classical, medieval and gunpowder combat system
• Implementing Varietas Delectat, if possible modular

Roughly ordered by their priority. I'm going to add a plans / known problems / testing requests section to the first post to avoid further confusion, as already suggested

Is Gran Colombia even qualified to be considered here, for reasons other than flavor and unpredictability?

It's definitely more likely than Polynesia. As I see it, there are three factors which decide whether a civ is viable:

1. A rich enough history to provide UU, UB, UHV and UP.
2. Available models at least for UU and leaderhead.
3. Providing an interesting challenge or making the game world more interesting.

For Gran Colombia, I see (3) as given, but not (1) so far. If someone can provide some ideas we could take a look at (2).

Considering the Landsknecht was Swiss and not an invention of the HRE, it would make more sense if the Landsknecht was available to everyone, possibly in the form of mercenarys.

You're probably confusing Swiss mercenaries (and especially Swiss pikemen) with Landsknechts. To quote wikipedia:

It [the term "Landsknechts"] was originally coined by Peter von Hagenbach and intended to indicate soldiers of the lowlands of the Holy Roman Empire as opposed to the Swiss mercenaries. [...]

The first Landsknecht regiments were formed by Maximilian I [Holy Roman Emperor]. He called upon Georg von Frundsberg, known by many as the Father of the Landsknechts, to assist him in their organization. [...]

The landsknechts typically came from Swabia, Alsace, Flanders, and the Rhineland, but ultimately the regiments were made up of men from all parts of Europe.

The Landsknechts with their more loose formation (which also included gunpowder weapons like muskets) were even specifically designed to break the Swiss pikemen's dominance on the battlefield.

 

[AdrienIer]

Great priorities !
On the subject of strange mercenaries, I saw Incans with knights, pikemen and longbowmen in 1550. I was ashamed : my conqueror's soldiers weren't enough to conquer Cuzco.

 

[Cethegus]

Looks like yours weren't the first Europeans on American soil.

 

[SanePerson]

The Landsknechts with their more loose formation (which also included gunpowder weapons like muskets) were even specifically designed to break the Swiss pikemen's dominance on the battlefield.

To quote Britannica:

Spoiler :

"Though it is hard to be certain, apparently the hard-marching Swiss possessed sufficient operational mobility to keep up with cavalry, at any rate in confined terrain such as Alpine valleys. If the worst occurred and an isolated column was caught in the open, the troops could always form a square or hedgehog, facing outward in all directions while keeping up a steady fire from their crossbows and relying on their pikes to keep the opposing horse at a respectful distance until help arrived. Whereas the Scots inhabited a northern wilderness, the Swiss were located in the centre of Europe, and, whereas the Flemish went down in front of French chivalry at Roosebeke in 1382, the Swiss won a series of spectacular victories at Morgarten (1315), Laupen (1339), Sempach (1386), and Granson (1476). These two factors combined to give Swiss tactics a reputation in Europe. From about 1450 to 1550, every leading prince either hired Swiss troops or set up units, such as the German Landsknechte, that imitated their weapons and methods—helping to bring down the entire feudal order."

In other words, the German Landsknechte were imitations of the Swiss pikemen, which were mercenaries. A renamed Landsknecht could easily be a Swiss pikemen unit. Its more historical than the Celtic units you find in the game in it's present state. However, the Teutonic Knights may not be the best choice to replace them because they had their own kingdom (the Baltic coast up to St. Petersburg and Prussia).


Of course, this might lead one to make the argument that Prussia could exist in medieval times, in a similar form to Italy. However, I don't see the point of that.

 

[Jusos2108]

What civ were you planning to respawn as Prussia? BTW, I am assuming that you forgot Sweden..?

 

[SanePerson]

What civ were you planning to respawn as Prussia? BTW, I am assuming that you forgot Sweden..?

It seems as if Sweden will not be added because there is only room for one civ in Scandinavia

 

[Leoreth]

I didn't forget Sweden, I just was stating my top priorities. Sweden currently has too much problems to be considered until I can start thinking about adding them.

 

[DisposableHero]

I think there's a bug with uranium. I've settled a city in southern Austrialia near the uranium. I have a mine on it and a road leading to the city. The tile quite clearly says 'uranium' (not 'uranium: requires mine'). Uranium does not appear in my list of resources. I'm not trading it. I cannot build Destroyers.

And just to test, I went into world builder and added a source of uranium right next to my capital (Tokyo). I still do not have access to uranium nor can I build Destroyers.

I need FIssion

 

[dcode147]

Awesome priorities!

Do the Safavids/more modern Iranian civ fit your civ consideration requirements? I'm definitely thinking they'll fit 1) since they were a great power for many centuries and might be the single most important reason Shia Islam is as widespread as it is today; and 3) since another Islamic power makes Middle East much more interesting than usual Arab-Turkish conflicts.

Of course, you've heard this from me before, but I'd prefer they be a continuation of the current Persian civ rather than a completely new civ spawned since personally I think new civ spawns are always annoying for players to remember and make the game much more deterministic.

I'm especially excited about the warfare updates! (good luck in working out a new system. getting a good warfare update would either make this mod phenomenal or break the game)

 

[dcode147]

Regarding proposed playable Byzantine civ spawn.

As I currently see it, if the AI Greeks survive, then players will just see a weak/normal Greece. If they don't survive, players will see a strong newly spawned Byzantines civ that behaves completely different from the Greek civ with new UU, UBs, leaders etc. I feel this makes the game unpredictable in a not very good way.

I can't remember who posted the awesome pics of a historical Roman Empire in RFC, but I recall afterwards you said that you'd look into having Rome represent the actual Roman Empire as opposed to just the Western Roman Empire. Are you still planning on doing that?

In summary... ways of including the Byzantines in 3000BC in my order of my preference

1) Between Rome and Greece, whichever civ completes the a GrecoRoman civ specific quest (such as Control Byzantium and at least 2 cities in Europe and 2 cities in Asia in the year 600AD), gets
-their palace automatically moved to Byzantium
-couple of free military units spawned at Byzantium
-access to Byzantine unique units, unique buildings,
-and the ability to have the most challenging Byzantine UHV condition count towards meeting one of their 3 UHVs.

2) A combined Roman-Byzantine civilization. Buff this civilization. Automove their capital to Byzantium when certain conditions are met. Give this civ 4 UHV conditions (2 from Roman Era and 2 from Byzantine Era). Will need to attain 3 of 4 UHV conditions for a UHV.

3) A combined Greco-Byzantine civ. Same as above but with Greeks instead of Romans.

4) Kinda like the proposed "personal union between France and Austria/Germany/HRE to represent the Carolingian Empire" idea. Except have a personal union between Rome and Greece

5) AI controlled Greek civ is entirely replaced by Byzantine civ in every game at Byzantine spawn. If Greek civ is human-controlled, then player gets option whether to spawn and switch to the Byzantine civ or not.

8) No Byzantine spawn in 3000BC (like in RFC).

6) Byzantine spawn only if Greek civ is already defeated.

7) Byzantine spawn no matter what.

 

[KMRblue1027]

Regarding proposed playable Byzantine civ spawn.

As I currently see it, if the AI Greeks survive, then players will just see a weak/normal Greece. If they don't survive, players will see a strong newly spawned Byzantines civ that behaves completely different from the Greek civ with new UU, UBs, leaders etc. I feel this makes the game unpredictable in a not very good way.

I can't remember who posted the awesome pics of a historical Roman Empire in RFC, but I recall afterwards you said that you'd look into having Rome represent the actual Roman Empire as opposed to just the Western Roman Empire. Are you still planning on doing that?

In summary... ways of including the Byzantines in 3000BC in my order of my preference

1) Between Rome and Greece, whichever civ completes the a GrecoRoman civ specific quest (such as Control Byzantium and at least 2 cities in Europe and 2 cities in Asia in the year 600AD), gets
-their palace automatically moved to Byzantium
-couple of free military units spawned at Byzantium
-access to Byzantine unique units, unique buildings,
-and the ability to have the most challenging Byzantine UHV condition count towards meeting one of their 3 UHVs.

2) A combined Roman-Byzantine civilization. Buff this civilization. Automove their capital to Byzantium when certain conditions are met. Give this civ 4 UHV conditions (2 from Roman Era and 2 from Byzantine Era). Will need to attain 3 of 4 UHV conditions for a UHV.

3) A combined Greco-Byzantine civ. Same as above but with Greeks instead of Romans.

4) Kinda like the proposed "personal union between France and Austria/Germany/HRE to represent the Carolingian Empire" idea. Except have a personal union between Rome and Greece

5) AI controlled Greek civ is entirely replaced by Byzantine civ in every game at Byzantine spawn. If Greek civ is human-controlled, then player gets option whether to spawn and switch to the Byzantine civ or not.

8) No Byzantine spawn in 3000BC (like in RFC).

6) Byzantine spawn only if Greek civ is already defeated.

7) Byzantine spawn no matter what.

I like 5 and 6 the best they both world work well.

 

[Leoreth]

I'm especially excited about the warfare updates! (good luck in working out a new system. getting a good warfare update would either make this mod phenomenal or break the game)

Yeah, that's probably very true. I know this is a very daring and experimental effort (I don't think Firaxis threw their combat system together on a whim), and it can fail miserably. We'll see what happens after I have implemented my yet to be finished concept and if it turns out to be bad, I'll scrap it. Having changes just for the sake of change isn't my philosophy.

On the Safavids, many of the problems you listed are what caused me to not mention them in my above list. I've yet to decide how they'll find their way into the game.

Regarding proposed playable Byzantine civ spawn.

As I currently see it, if the AI Greeks survive, then players will just see a weak/normal Greece. If they don't survive, players will see a strong newly spawned Byzantines civ that behaves completely different from the Greek civ with new UU, UBs, leaders etc. I feel this makes the game unpredictable in a not very good way.

I can't remember who posted the awesome pics of a historical Roman Empire in RFC, but I recall afterwards you said that you'd look into having Rome represent the actual Roman Empire as opposed to just the Western Roman Empire. Are you still planning on doing that?

In summary... ways of including the Byzantines in 3000BC in my order of my preference

1) Between Rome and Greece, whichever civ completes the a GrecoRoman civ specific quest (such as Control Byzantium and at least 2 cities in Europe and 2 cities in Asia in the year 600AD), gets
-their palace automatically moved to Byzantium
-couple of free military units spawned at Byzantium
-access to Byzantine unique units, unique buildings,
-and the ability to have the most challenging Byzantine UHV condition count towards meeting one of their 3 UHVs.

2) A combined Roman-Byzantine civilization. Buff this civilization. Automove their capital to Byzantium when certain conditions are met. Give this civ 4 UHV conditions (2 from Roman Era and 2 from Byzantine Era). Will need to attain 3 of 4 UHV conditions for a UHV.

3) A combined Greco-Byzantine civ. Same as above but with Greeks instead of Romans.

4) Kinda like the proposed "personal union between France and Austria/Germany/HRE to represent the Carolingian Empire" idea. Except have a personal union between Rome and Greece

5) AI controlled Greek civ is entirely replaced by Byzantine civ in every game at Byzantine spawn. If Greek civ is human-controlled, then player gets option whether to spawn and switch to the Byzantine civ or not.

8) No Byzantine spawn in 3000BC (like in RFC).

6) Byzantine spawn only if Greek civ is already defeated.

7) Byzantine spawn no matter what.

I believe that all civs are created equal, so I probably won't include any special treatment for Rome along the lines of extra achievable unique units or buildings. Of course it would be better if we had Byzantium directly breaking off of a Roman civ that controls Greece and Thrace, but with the current AI this seems impossible to make happen (and it would open up a whole new can of worms ... does England have to have settled the Thirteen Colonies to make America spawn?). And I personally would like to have a whole Byzantine UHV challenge - that is my personal preference at least.

So I guess it will be your options (5) or (6) in the end.

On Rome itself, I will wrap my mind around how to create a manageable challenge (so that it doesn't require insane playing skills) that better represents the whole Roman empire, other than just Western Rome. It won't be Trajan, but I could picture something more east-oriented instead of the current third goal.

 

[AOS9001]

On the subject of Byzantium, I believe that it's still going to be a 600 AD only Civilization. It'd require a lot of chance and/or work for it to spawn in 3000 BC if needs Rome to have cities there first, but it could clear out all the other civs of the East Mediterranean if it just spawns anyway. Making way for the Arab conquests, and what not. I've always wanted to see more of a Roman-Persian rivalry, but that's pretty rare in RFC.

 

[civ_king]

I agree the embassy isn't a big issue. What about just having the embassy built automatically in the nation's capital as opposed to a random city?

San Francisco has many embassies and is not the American capitol

Although I understand that the HRE did not have a nominal capital, I think one of the most significant places in the Empire for political power was Aachen. Aachen is where many of the HR Emperors stayed, and where they were coranated. This would also put pressure off the East, and have the HRE (Germans), more involved with France and Spain and Italy as well (across the Alps). It would therefore have Russia able to expand properly, and hold on to Kiev (which seems to always be in the hands of the Germans), and would nominally stop a German Crimea, which I always tend to see. Also the Ottomans, would also hopefully be able to expand unmolested into the Crimea and Balkans, with only having to fight off the Russians initially, and then later the Germans, if they got far North enough.

Early HRE was French

You could replace Frankfurt with it, and instead later in the game, have Aachen switch its name with Frankfurt (like Edo to Tokyo)

Tokyo IS Edo at least according to a museum I went to in Tokyo

Yeah, that's probably very true. I know this is a very daring and experimental effort (I don't think Firaxis threw their combat system together on a whim), and it can fail miserably. We'll see what happens after I have implemented my yet to be finished concept and if it turns out to be bad, I'll scrap it. Having changes just for the sake of change isn't my philosophy.

On the Safavids, many of the problems you listed are what caused me to not mention them in my above list. I've yet to decide how they'll find their way into the game.


I believe that all civs are created equal, so I probably won't include any special treatment for Rome along the lines of extra achievable unique units or buildings. Of course it would be better if we had Byzantium directly breaking off of a Roman civ that controls Greece and Thrace, but with the current AI this seems impossible to make happen (and it would open up a whole new can of worms ... does England have to have settled the Thirteen Colonies to make America spawn?). And I personally would like to have a whole Byzantine UHV challenge - that is my personal preference at least.

So I guess it will be your options (5) or (6) in the end.

On Rome itself, I will wrap my mind around how to create a manageable challenge (so that it doesn't require insane playing skills) that better represents the whole Roman empire, other than just Western Rome. It won't be Trajan, but I could picture something more east-oriented instead of the current third goal.

Wouldn't that punish a successful Rome?

 

[dcode147]

San Francisco has many embassies and is not the American capitol

There are a lot of consulates in many major cities. Embassies are, barring extreme circumstances, almost always located in a nation's capital. I don't think a separate consulate building is necessary.

Wouldn't that punish a successful Rome?

Could you be a bit more specific? Are you referring to the fact that the cities you founded would just flip to another civ?

 

[Sandmonster1989]

Landsnecht: Wikipedia says:
"...European, most often German, mercenary pikemen and supporting foot soldiers from the late 15th to the late 16th century, and achieved the reputation for being the universal mercenary of the European Renaissance."

"...they also often fought in formations mixed with Spaniards, who made widespread use of the arquebus and, later, musket."
They should be available to more than just the HRE.

New Dynamic Names:
Persia should get some after certain points in time.
Italy needs some for their vassals. I didn't like having the Mali be my vassal and be called "Malinese Empire".

Babylon:
Ok. I like their proposed UP, then.

Italy:
I think their power only works in their capital. I couldn't get Genova to generate EXTRA great people, but Venizia did.

England:
They controlled Normandy, Northern France should be "Historical"...

New Combat System:
Still excited.

Fixes for Arabia:
Also, still excited!!

Colonies/Americas:
Religion should spread in new city OR crusader event. Embassies shouldn't be founded in Colonies, maybe they should only be founded in either the most culturally powerful cities or most populous (San Francisco would be the first, NYC would be the first and second for a few examples).

 

[skunkpuppy]

Okay, top priority for new features will be on:

• Expand the new rebirth mechanic to other civilizations, first for civs already there in BtS
  • Byzantium
  • Prussia/Germany and HRE/Austria (the former will be a rebirth civ, the latter the Germany we currently know
  • Korea
• Historical capital switches for the AI (especially Arabia)
• Better city placement in the Middle East for 600 AD
• More eastern wonders
• Rework of the classical, medieval and gunpowder combat system
• Implementing Varietas Delectat, if possible modular

I'm interested in more Eastern wonders! Would you be taking suggestions?
So many lovely things, some of which have appeared in other mods.

Bamiyan Buddhas of Afghanistan
Kiyomizu Temple of Japan
Boroburdur of Indonesia
Nalanda University of India
The Grand Canal of China
The West Lake of Hangzhou
Potala Palace of Tibet
Kinkakuji Temple of Japan
Petronas Twin Towers of Malaysia
Banaue Rice Terraces of the Philippines

 

[Leoreth]

On the subject of Byzantium, I believe that it's still going to be a 600 AD only Civilization. It'd require a lot of chance and/or work for it to spawn in 3000 BC if needs Rome to have cities there first, but it could clear out all the other civs of the East Mediterranean if it just spawns anyway. Making way for the Arab conquests, and what not. I've always wanted to see more of a Roman-Persian rivalry, but that's pretty rare in RFC.

I don't think we could rely on the Romans expanding there first, so they'll spawn there no matter what. It's the same situation with Germany currently: historically, they were a branch-off from the Franks, but in RFC, they can spawn no matter if the French are already there.

Wouldn't that punish a successful Rome?

Not more like America punishes a successful England. One could consider to tie their spawn to Rome's stability to give the player a chance to keep his empire together.

Italy needs some for their vassals. I didn't like having the Mali be my vassal and be called "Malinese Empire".

There seems to be something wrong with the naming code then, because the vassal names are definitely there.

Italy:
I think their power only works in their capital. I couldn't get Genova to generate EXTRA great people, but Venizia did.

Interesting. Could you post a screenshot of that?

England:
They controlled Normandy, Northern France should be "Historical"...

The tiles could be contested at most, because they're in France's core.

Embassies shouldn't be founded in Colonies, maybe they should only be founded in either the most culturally powerful cities or most populous (San Francisco would be the first, NYC would be the first and second for a few examples).

Culture or population are also viable factors, yes.

I'm interested in more Eastern wonders! Would you be taking suggestions?
So many lovely things, some of which have appeared in other mods.

Bamiyan Buddhas of Afghanistan
Kiyomizu Temple of Japan
Boroburdur of Indonesia
Nalanda University of India
The Grand Canal of China
The West Lake of Hangzhou
Potala Palace of Tibet
Kinkakuji Temple of Japan
Petronas Twin Towers of Malaysia
Banaue Rice Terraces of the Philippines

Of course I take suggestions

Some of your proposals sound really good. Of course not every one can make it into the mod, because I'll always also have to think of viable effects, but at least now I have something to choose from

 

[The Turk]

The tiles could be contested at most, because they're in France's core.

I actually spawned Rouen in Northern France as an independent, and then in 1066, I had Rouen flip to the English, and had the French attack, so its quite an interesting situation actually, basically I just changed the French spawn zone.

Also why don't the Viking start off with workers?
And I would recommend moving the capital back up to Norway, but having Arhus (a city in Denmark), flip to the Vikings'

Also why is Scandanavia so "green" and fertile? I don't think its THAT fertile!

Also quite a few leaders are missing their texts, you might want to check up on that, and add generic ones at least