Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

[jammerculture]

World War 2 bases and occupied cities
Thats my guess...

That's what I figured as well but thought I should bring it up just in case it wasn't intended.

 

[dcode147]

Also, England needs to respawn in 1066, so it can expel the Vikings, that tend to collapse the young England from its inception. Overall though, I would move the English and Spanish spawn, as they really do annoy me.

Yes, the AI appears only to be good at resisting foreign occupiers when they are spawning.

 

[lumpthing]

But wait, if a parliament is only rubber-stamp, how can it give the benefits associated with parliamentarianism (the extra hammer per town, which I suppose represents the benefits of their participation in gov't; and the unhappiness in other civs, who don't have the benefit of representation)? Not that it's significant gameplay-wise, and in any case the benefits are really abstract, but the Organization tab feels as confusing as the Legal tab in BTS was.

I think it's more confusing. How can you have a parliament without some level of representation? How is "government" not an integral part of "organization" anyway?

 

[J. pride]

Also, England needs to respawn in 1066, so it can expel the Vikings, that tend to collapse the young England from its inception. Overall though, I would move the English and Spanish spawn, as they really do annoy me.

In my opinion all most all the European Civs need revised spawn date especially the Spanish and the English

 

[azander12]

I think it's more confusing. How can you have a parliament without some level of representation? How is "government" not an integral part of "organization" anyway?

From what I understand, Parliament is representative of modern liberal democracy, with a strong legislature, while Representation is any other kind of democratic or quasi-democratic system.

 

[Orka]

In my opinion all most all the European Civs need revised spawn date especially the Spanish and the English

The current spawn dates aren't actually unreasonable. I looked into Wikipedia and found out the reasons for Rhye's choices (spoilered).

Spoiler :

All the European countries, with the exception of the Netherlands (which Leoreth thankfully moved to 1500), have historically justifiable spawns. In general, Rhye opted for the earliest date possible, in order to maximize playing turns for the player.

• Spain spawns in 718. This is when the Muslims were at their height, and a few years preceding the Battle of Covadonga (722), the dawn of the Reconquista. The problem is that in RFC Arabia never colonizes Spain (game timespan too short); and Spain spawns in ahistorical Madrid, making it look like a Modern unified Spain but in the Middle Ages. However, these problems are fixable.
  
• England spawns in 829. This is when the kingdom of Wessex briefly conquered its rival Mencia, a turning point in a sense. Wessex would go on to unify England, repulsing Danish (Viking) invasions along the way. To be fair, this old England was eventually conquered by the Danes. So the Norman Conquest in 1066 (birth of modern England) is also a viable start date, or a respawn date. However, Rhye opted for the earlier date, of course.
  
• France's spawn in 751 corresponds with the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty. A case could be made for an earlier spawn date.
  
• Germany's in 843 corresponds to the Treaty of Verdun, when Charlemagne's empire spit in three, the eastern portion being the precursor to the Holy Roman Empire and modern Germany.
  
• Russia's 860 spawn corresponds approximately to the formation of Kievan Rus. The formation of Grand Duchy of Moscow (the real precursor of Russia), 1283, is also possible, but was probably too late for Rhye's tastes.
  
• Even the Viking spawn in 551 (before the Viking age) is based on its mentioning by Roman historian Jordanes from Constantinople.

Overall, the spawn dates themselves are fine. But some have wrong spawn locations, and often historical events don't play out correctly (for example, Russia doesn't get attacked by Mongols). Those are what need tweaking, in my view.

 

[Alexius08]

Spain spawns in 718. This is when the Muslims were at their height, and a few years preceding the Battle of Covadonga (722), the dawn of the Reconquista. The problem is that in RFC Arabia never colonizes Spain (game timespan too short); and Spain spawns in ahistorical Madrid, making it look like a Modern unified Spain but in the Middle Ages. However, these problems are fixable.

Why not move it to 418 to represent the Visigothic Kingdom? We could move the date of the 2nd Roman UHV to 400.

France's spawn in 751 corresponds with the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty. A case could be made for an earlier spawn date.

We could also move this one to 481 (rise of the Merovingians).

Russia's 860 spawn corresponds approximately to the formation of Kievan Rus. The formation of Grand Duchy of Moscow (the real precursor of Russia), 1283, is also possible, but was probably too late for Rhye's tastes.

1168 (Vladimir-Suzdal) would be fine, as long as they are given enough settlers and could defend against the Mongols.

 

[The Turk]

My point though, is that for greater gameplay efficiancy, and for the ability to have the Moors, you need to move the Spanish and English spawn dates. Currently the Vikings attack England, and England never recovers. Thats why if you allow the Vikings to conquer England and then have the English spawn in 1066, you could have them be able to repel the Vikings easily.

As for Spain, this would give time for a Moorish minor civ to solidify its base. The Visigothic Kingdom, was more like a rabble of chieftains, thats why I think it would be best to move it to the unification of Castile y Leon, that way, it would represent a stronger, more unified force. You could have them spawn in Santiago, and then when they capture Toledo, like the Ottomans, they would move their capital there. And then in the 16th century Toledo would become Madrid (like Edo ---> Tokyo). Thats an ideal situation, and I hope something like this is implemented.

Currently I think France is ok. Everyone knows about my problem with Germany, it being place in Austria, so the starting date doesn't make sense, if anything it should be moved forward.

The Arabs start in 600 AD, which is completely wrong, they should start in 632 AD (the death of Muhammed), and it would give time for the Byzantines to get ready, instead of losing their land immediately.

And overall starting locations are wrong, including India's, which should be moved to Patliputra at least, as Delhi was never the capital until the Muslims arrived.

And the Italians should spawn in the 19th century

/rant on spawn dates

 

[J. pride]

Spain spawns in 718. This is when the Muslims were at their height, and a few years preceding the Battle of Covadonga (722), the dawn of the Reconquista. The problem is that in RFC Arabia never colonizes Spain (game timespan too short); and Spain spawns in ahistorical Madrid, making it look like a Modern unified Spain but in the Middle Ages. However, these problems are fixable.

The Spanish spawn should be moved to 900 ad. This marks the rise of Leon and signifies the foundation of modern Spain. Emirate of Cordoba is not the same thing as Spain; actually they cant be more opposite. The Muslim influence on the region can be represented by an independent Isbilya (Seville) spawning in 712 ad. I think the Spainish should still start in Madrid as it is the most viable option (considering map size).

England spawns in 829. This is when the kingdom of Wessex briefly conquered its rival Mencia, a turning point in a sense. Wessex would go on to unify England, repulsing Danish (Viking) invasions along the way. To be fair, this old England was eventually conquered by the Danes. So the Norman Conquest in 1066 (birth of modern England) is also a viable start date, or a respawn date. However, Rhye opted for the earlier date, of course.

The Norman Conquest start in 1066 is a better option considering that it effectively shows Viking influence in the region while it still allows for Britain to reconquer its possession. An independent city in Scotland flipping to the Vikings should accurately represent that.

France's spawn in 751 corresponds with the beginning of the Carolingian dynasty. A case could be made for an earlier spawn date.
Germany's in 843 corresponds to the Treaty of Verdun, when Charlemagne's empire spit in three, the eastern portion being the precursor to the Holy Roman Empire and modern Germany.

Both France and Germany should start in 843 as the treaty of Verdun is the precursor to both France and Germany.

Russia's 860 spawn corresponds approximately to the formation of Kievan Rus. The formation of Grand Duchy of Moscow (the real precursor of Russia), 1283, is also possible, but was probably too late for Rhye's tastes.

Actually Russia should start in 1160 to signify the rise of Vladimir-Suzdal (precursor to the Duchy of Moscow). Instead of getting settlers, Russia should be surrounded by various independents cities including Kiev, Voldoga and St. Petersburg and Nizhny Novgorod. This is because in reality the duchy of Moscow did not found all these cities but conquer them; also the russian city is selection is poor too.

The Arabs start in 600 AD, which is completely wrong, they should start in 632 AD (the death of Muhammed), and it would give time for the Byzantines to get ready, instead of losing their land immediately.

Even with all the help the Arabs cannot conquer most of their historical holdings so that is a bad idea. Also Arabia was untied before the death of Prophet Muhammad and historically Syria, Egypt and Iraq were conquered during 640-650 so that is pretty accurate.

 

[jammerculture]

here's a few saves of a German game (well half a game) with the Italy respawn crash in case it helps

 

[civ_king]

My point though, is that for greater gameplay efficiancy, and for the ability to have the Moors, you need to move the Spanish and English spawn dates. Currently the Vikings attack England, and England never recovers. Thats why if you allow the Vikings to conquer England and then have the English spawn in 1066, you could have them be able to repel the Vikings easily.

As for Spain, this would give time for a Moorish minor civ to solidify its base. The Visigothic Kingdom, was more like a rabble of chieftains, thats why I think it would be best to move it to the unification of Castile y Leon, that way, it would represent a stronger, more unified force. You could have them spawn in Santiago, and then when they capture Toledo, like the Ottomans, they would move their capital there. And then in the 16th century Toledo would become Madrid (like Edo ---> Tokyo). Thats an ideal situation, and I hope something like this is implemented.

Currently I think France is ok. Everyone knows about my problem with Germany, it being place in Austria, so the starting date doesn't make sense, if anything it should be moved forward.

The Arabs start in 600 AD, which is completely wrong, they should start in 632 AD (the death of Muhammed), and it would give time for the Byzantines to get ready, instead of losing their land immediately.

And overall starting locations are wrong, including India's, which should be moved to Patliputra at least, as Delhi was never the capital until the Muslims arrived.

And the Italians should spawn in the 19th century

/rant on spawn dates

Toledo≠Madrid, Edo=Tokyo

In the 3000 BC scenario Arabs spawn in AD 632

The Spanish spawn should be moved to 900 ad. This marks the rise of Leon and signifies the foundation of modern Spain. Emirate of Cordoba is not the same thing as Spain; actually they cant be more opposite. The Muslim influence on the region can be represented by an independent Isbilya (Seville) spawning in 712 ad. I think the Spainish should still start in Madrid as it is the most viable option (considering map size).

The Norman Conquest start in 1066 is a better option considering that it effectively shows Viking influence in the region while it still allows for Britain to reconquer its possession. An independent city in Scotland flipping to the Vikings should accurately represent that.

Both France and Germany should start in 843 as the treaty of Verdun is the precursor to both France and Germany.

Actually Russia should start in 1160 to signify the rise of Vladimir-Suzdal (precursor to the Duchy of Moscow). Instead of getting settlers, Russia should be surrounded by various independents cities including Kiev, Voldoga and St. Petersburg and Nizhny Novgorod. This is because in reality the duchy of Moscow did not found all these cities but conquer them; also the russian city is selection is poor too.


Even with all the help the Arabs cannot conquer most of their historical holdings so that is a bad idea. Also Arabia was untied before the death of Prophet Muhammad and historically Syria, Egypt and Iraq were conquered during 640-650 so that is pretty accurate.

I agree on Spain

agree on England

agree on France/Germany, but I think Marseilles should be indie (Burgundy/Savoy)

agree on Russia

 

[rob85]

Toledo≠Madrid, Edo=Tokyo

But Memphis ≠ Cairo and Ctesiphon ≠ Baghdad.

 

[civ_king]

But Memphis ≠ Cairo and Ctesiphon ≠ Baghdad.

They are much closer

 

[lumpthing]

From what I understand, Parliament is representative of modern liberal democracy, with a strong legislature, while Representation is any other kind of democratic or quasi-democratic system.

That would make sense if the two civics were mutually exclusive (like Representation and Universal Suffrage in the original civics). What would be a examples of regimes that had

• Parliament but not Representation?
• Representation but not Parliament?
• Both Representation and Parliament?

Also, your definition suggests they are both forms of government, which begs the question: why are they in separate civic categories?

 

[The Turk]

They are much closer

But Civ_King, does it REALLY matter that much? And no Ctesphion is not too close to Baghdad. And when you take into consideration how small the map is, Toledo is RIGHT next to Madrid. Plus it makes sense, since Toledo was the capital for a long time, before Madrid was with Philip II (at least I think it was him who changed the capital )

 

[LuKo]

Both France and Germany should start in 843 as the treaty of Verdun is the precursor to both France and Germany.

But then Franks would be unrepresented. I find them rather important civilization in history...

 

[The Turk]

But then Franks would be unrepresented. I find them rather important civilization in history...

I'd have to politely disagree LuKo, the fact is that if France and Germany spawn on the same date, the AI (but most the human) cannot take advanatage of their early spawn date, and therefore cannot burn down Frankfurt, which I always try to do at least
The point being is that I think it would be better for their modern equivalents to show, while we could have "Frankish" and "Germanic" barb placeholders until they spawn. I think that would be ideal.

 

[hoplitejoe]

The Norman Conquest start in 1066 is a better option considering that it effectively shows Viking influence in the region while it still allows for Britain to reconquer its possession. An independent city in Scotland flipping to the Vikings should accurately represent that.

this seems a worse propsal than the already set date. the Vikings never had much of a hold on scotland, there terrotory was lower than that around the York area. a Viking scotland is ahistorical and is fine when it happens by chance but to flip a Scottish city to the Vikings would be wrong. keeping just an independent seems fine as at 1066 most kingdoms where either pict or scot.

Spoiler influenced in Scotland in 1100 :

after 1100 Christendom began to settle in and the raiders stopped so if you want raids in a historical time frame you will need the earlier spawn date. finally with this talk of independent/Viking Scotland it seems to me clear that we are not talking about "the British" but rather "the English" (at least for the early part of the game). for Britain to spawn at 1066 makes sense but England had been around prior to that

 

[The Turk]

this seems a worse propsal than the already set date. the Vikings never had much of a hold on scotland, there terrotory was lower than that around the York area. a Viking scotland is ahistorical and is fine when it happens by chance but to flip a Scottish city to the Vikings would be wrong. keeping just an independent seems fine as at 1066 most kingdoms where either pict or scot.

Spoiler influenced in Scotland in 1100 :

after 1100 Christendom began to settle in and the raiders stopped so if you want raids in a historical time frame you will need the earlier spawn date. finally with this talk of independent/Viking Scotland it seems to me clear that we are not talking about "the British" but rather "the English" (at least for the early part of the game). for Britain to spawn at 1066 makes sense but England had been around prior to that

I agree, having a independent Scotland makes sense, and not having it flip to the English would be nice to, so that they would actually be forced to conquer it first. Also the England we know TODAY, started in 1066, before that it was fractured and broken up into pieces.

 

[LuKo]

I'd have to politely disagree LuKo, the fact is that if France and Germany spawn on the same date, the AI (but most the human) cannot take advanatage of their early spawn date, and therefore cannot burn down Frankfurt, which I always try to do at least
The point being is that I think it would be better for their modern equivalents to show, while we could have "Frankish" and "Germanic" barb placeholders until they spawn. I think that would be ideal.

Knowing that Euro civs are going to spawn I do not invest in my Iberian/Gaelic cities or in London, playing as Rome. But if we know history in advance it's always like that. Still, it's not the reason to make things less historical. We should try to find another solution to problems like that (I've just got an idea how I can do that- UHQ giving France bonuses for controling some cities in Germany before their spawn).