Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

[azander12]

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?

Well, as far as I know in Doc, Representation and Parliamentarism are civics in the Organization column, which is what I was talking about.

As for regimes with a Parliament and no direct representation, most modern liberal democracies are like this, with referendums being very rare. Representation without a Parliament would be more like a city council, or the workers' councils of the USSR.

 

[jammerculture]

there was a lengthy conversation earlier in this thread where Leoreth outlined his justifications for the various civic columns and meanings. Those of you who are confused should look back in the thread, as you are currently beating a long dead horse.

On city renaming, on a map this small, city tiles are actually province sized and have many hidden cities within them. Having toledo turn into Madrid, for example, doesn't mean they are physically the same city, rather that they are different cities in the same region. the name change denotes that the new city is now the most important city in the region, provincial capital, or center of government administration for the region. therefore, current name changes (Baghdad, Tokyo) and potential future name changes (Toledo to madrid) are entirely justified. The presence of city specific wonders does blur this a bit but come on now, at some point you just need to suspend disbelief and play the game.

 

[azander12]

there was a lengthy conversation earlier in this thread where Leoreth outlined his justifications for the various civic columns and meanings. Those of you who are confused should look back in the thread, as you are currently beating a long dead horse.

Any idea where it is?

 

[jammerculture]

Any idea where it is?

try the first half of the thread, if that doesn't work, then try the second.

 

[lumpthing]

I assume jammerculture means this post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9179314&postcount=194

If Parliament simply means any system that features something that could be called a "parliament" (including, presumably, equivalent words in other languages), regardless of whether or not it has any actual constitutional power, then it is meaningless. A powerless parliament is simply a gathering of the powerful people of the land, where the ruler finds this necessary or useful. This is a feature of pretty much every regime throughout history, since no ruler can afford to completely ignore other powerbrokers within the realm.

 

[Orka]

I'm not sure what it is with all the proposals to change the starting dates? If the reason is for historical accuracy, then let me explain why the current model is fine.

Civilization in this game don't have to represent just the modern culture, or its direct precursor. They can represent multiple cultures in a civilization's history. China was hardly a monolithic culture from 3000BC to modern times, but the game simplifies and represents it as one civilization. India receives the same treatment. There is nothing wrong with that, especially if historical events are properly represented.

So I see no reason why European spawn dates should be moved to later, to when the civilization "actually" spawned, and not represent their earlier forms. That'd be like moving the Chinese spawn date to 221BC. If needed, dynamic capital changes and events can be scripted in to represent transitions, and personally I'd have more fun playing it that way.

 

[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

Read...

 

[Cosmos1985]

Read...

As hard as it may be for you to believe, it is actually possible for other people to have other opinions than yours - that does not mean did they not read what you wrote.

 

[The Turk]

As hard as it may be for you to believe, it is actually possible for other people to have other opinions than yours - that does not mean did they not read what you wrote.

No Cosmos, that does mean that they did not read what I wrote, because I stated that it was not only for "historical" reasons that spawn dates should be moved. With the exception of the Arabs, which are just plain wrong, it would make sense to move the English and Spanish spawn dates and it would be interesting to move the German and French spawn dates to match each other, although I believe thats secondary.

That is why...

 

[hoplitejoe]

It might of helped if you hadn't been quite as rude asking for some comments on your idea.
unfortunately i only really have an idea of English history so I cannot comment on the accuracy on you assertions. instead i think there are reasons to keep the dates as they are due to game play (which as far as i'm concerned is the most important part of any mod). if you change all the dates forward then there will be less turns to play as most civs which can only be a disadvantage.

 

[The Turk]

It might of helped if you hadn't been quite as rude asking for some comments on your idea.
unfortunately i only really have an idea of English history so I cannot comment on the accuracy on you assertions. instead i think there are reasons to keep the dates as they are due to game play (which as far as i'm concerned is the most important part of any mod). if you change all the dates forward then there will be less turns to play as most civs which can only be a disadvantage.

Actually hoplitejoe, you would get a tech boost, a troop boost AND we could gear England/Spain for the New World better, so in the end it wouldn't make a difference. And if you mentioned the points I've been making and others as well, you would realize that moving the dates is for gameplay reasons, and it is because we care so much about the game, that we would like to move them.

And no I did not ask for comments, so please don't call me rude

 

[rogue131]

Okay, I've been gone for a long time. Was out on U.S. operations in Libya, "Odyssey Dawn," you might've heard about it. What the heck is going on here between Turk and hoplitejoe? Also I thought I saw something about an update Leoreth? Is there one?

 

[hoplitejoe]

nothings "going on" between us everyone gets to call Yhe Turk rude at one point there's no hard feelings though.

 

[civ_king]

Okay, I've been gone for a long time. Was out on U.S. operations in Libya, "Odyssey Dawn," you might've heard about it. What the heck is going on here between Turk and hoplitejoe? Also I thought I saw something about an update Leoreth? Is there one?

We aren't at war with Libya, we're just dropping tons of bombs, feels like the Balkans

 

[The Turk]

We aren't at war with Libya, we're just dropping tons of bombs, feels like the Balkans

Ya thats what I was going to say! It is a lot like that, except hopefully this time they won't "bomb" a Chinese embassy

 

[Leoreth]

Okay, I've been gone for a long time. Was out on U.S. operations in Libya, "Odyssey Dawn," you might've heard about it. What the heck is going on here between Turk and hoplitejoe? Also I thought I saw something about an update Leoreth? Is there one?

Depends on how long you were away

I suggest you check the first post or the download page.

 

[AOS9001]

nothings "going on" between us everyone gets to call Yhe Turk rude at one point there's no hard feelings though.

It's pretty much a right of passage in the RFC section of the forums.

 

[Orka]

Read...

Thanks, Cosmos, for defending me, but The Turk's criticism is fair, since I only skimmed the posts , and was responding to "all the proposals" in general (wanting only to provide a general counterpoint). I'll take a look at The Turk's post...

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.

That's fair. However, I think Wessex England can still be represented. I'm leaning toward, on condition that the Vikings capture at least one city before the date, giving the English flips and extra armies in 1066. Sort of like RFCC's leader spawn. If England is actually collapsed/conquered, it could also receive French and/or Viking techs.

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.

I'm not sure what you mean by "solidify", since you can choose what the minor Moorish civ starts with. They don't need any time to solidify, just add more longbows, and reduce Spain's spawn zone. That in mind, I see nothing wrong with spawning Spain earlier to inject some action. In fact, from the player's perspective, it should be nice, allowing him more flexibility to choose the civilization's destiny.

I agree though that the spawn should be moved north, and dynamically moved south.

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

For the Arab start (600AD start), I think the Byzantines should be "surprised" and have little time to prepare, for the challenge and for the historicity. And the Arabs need all the time they can. But I wouldn't mind a later spawn if the flip zone is expanded somewhat.

And I agree on more accurate spawn locations. Italy - agree with at least a respawn in 1800s, but I think the Renaissance Italy experiment is worthy.

 

[The Turk]

Thanks, Cosmos, for defending me, but The Turk's criticism is fair, since I only skimmed the posts , and was responding to "all the proposals" in general (wanting only to provide a general counterpoint). I'll take a look at The Turk's post...

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

That's fair. However, I think Wessex England can still be represented. I'm leaning toward, on condition that the Vikings capture at least one city before the date, giving the English flips and extra armies in 1066. Sort of like RFCC's leader spawn. If England is actually collapsed/conquered, it could also receive French and/or Viking techs.

Oh I agree with you 100% Orka. Yes Londinium/London should be there from the beginning, as well as one Scottish city. And I would think that it would be REALLY cool for an English army to spawn outside of it, so that the Normans have to capture it, before flipping any Viking settlements in England/Wales.

I'm not sure what you mean by "solidify", since you can choose what the minor Moorish civ starts with. They don't need any time to solidify, just add more longbows, and reduce Spain's spawn zone. That in mind, I see nothing wrong with spawning Spain earlier to inject some action. In fact, from the player's perspective, it should be nice, allowing him more flexibility to choose the civilization's destiny.

Because the Moors would only spawn in 711, when Tariq ibn Ziyad crosses Gibraltar, so they would need time to flip the cities and everything. After that the Spanish could spawn in Santiago and slowly make their way down, same with the Portuguese, who could either spawn in Oporto or just spawn in Lisbon (conquering event like the Normans with London)

I agree though that the spawn should be moved north, and dynamically moved south.

Ya! Wouldn't that be awesome! Of course the Human wouldn't have to, but it would be pretty awesome.

For the Arab start (600AD start), I think the Byzantines should be "surprised" and have little time to prepare, for the challenge and for the historicity. And the Arabs need all the time they can. But I wouldn't mind a later spawn if the flip zone is expanded somewhat.

The thing is, is that this is like spawning the Mongols 50 years earlier, just for the heck of it. The Arabs only broke out of the peninsula when Islam unified them, having them spawn in 600 AD, and having Islam spawn prematurly is just wrong. I don't know if you know, but currently the Arabs spawn in 632, in the 3000BC start date, so how hard can it be to change it for the 600AD start?

And I agree on more accurate spawn locations. Italy - agree with at least a respawn in 1800s, but I think the Renaissance Italy experiment is worthy.

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.

 

[J. pride]

The thing is, is that this is like spawning the Mongols 50 years earlier, just for the heck of it. The Arabs only broke out of the peninsula when Islam unified them, having them spawn in 600 AD, and having Islam spawn prematurly is just wrong. I don't know if you know, but currently the Arabs spawn in 632, in the 3000BC start date, so how hard can it be to change it for the 600AD start?

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