Dawn of Civilization - an RFC modmod by Leoreth

[The Turk]

Sweden is already in consideration

Cool! I'll be looking forward to playing them!

 

[civ_king]

India as India?

 

[AOS9001]

While on the subject of more stuff, am I correct in remembering that China may be getting some new UHV goals?

 

[Sandmonster1989]

Prussia owned the northern chunk of modern Poland (Danzig/Gdansk) in its empire so a Poland would be a futile choice for a civ and Prussia an even better choice. It fills in a large gap of territory--especially if you keep the HRE's capital at Wien and have it get Frankfort (which it does).
Sweden would be a very fun civ, too!

I was thinking for the civs (such as: Canada, Australia, etc) to be more of... unplayable/filler civs. There is that open ground and all these civs that just get in the way of other civs from the 600ad start if the come back...changing them would kinda fill up the world map some more in places that aren't Europe. I only suggest Canada/Australia but there are many other civs (polynesia for example that could replace phoenecia and get water tile bonuses).

And moving tiles around is fun for a few turns, but its no fun in the long run... any other better ideas for a better Babylonian UP?
What are you thinking for the Byzantine's UP? UB? UHV? I've been pumped to play as them.

 

[AOS9001]

Prussia owned the northern chunk of modern Poland (Danzig/Gdansk) in its empire so a Poland would be a futile choice for a civ and Prussia an even better choice. It fills in a large gap of territory--especially if you keep the HRE's capital at Wien and have it get Frankfort (which it does).
Sweden would be a very fun civ, too!

I was thinking for the civs (such as: Canada, Australia, etc) to be more of... unplayable/filler civs. There is that open ground and all these civs that just get in the way of other civs from the 600ad start if the come back...changing them would kinda fill up the world map some more in places that aren't Europe. I only suggest Canada/Australia but there are many other civs (polynesia for example that could replace phoenecia and get water tile bonuses).

And moving tiles around is fun for a few turns, but its no fun in the long run... any other better ideas for a better Babylonian UP?
What are you thinking for the Byzantine's UP? UB? UHV? I've been pumped to play as them.

Polynesia would be epic fun. Just remove those useless peak islands (or give them a water and peak bonus, kinda like Incas), make them able to settle in jungle, and add in a few more fishes and stuff, and boom, a very unique setting for a civ. The UU could be like a galley that crosses oceans, and goals could be like keeping the Euros out of the Pacific, settling New Zealand and Hawaii, maybe even reaching Australia and Chile.

For the Byzantines, we could go with the Sword of Islam power, which grants espionage bonus from cities. However, you don't have a ton of cities in normal RFC, unlike the Byzantines in SoI. UB and UU could be the same as always, and UHV can re-doing Justinian's conquests, keeping the empire together, and things of that manner.

 

[SanePerson]

Persia might be a good civ to replace on the 600 AD start - there were a few powerful Persian states that emerged as Arabia declined. It might even make sense to add it in in the beginning as Persia instead of something else in the beginning of the 600 AD start.

Poland and possibly Finland should probably be represented by city-states. A city-state in Finland might stop Russia from expanding too far to the west (that was traditionally German territory) and if the Vikings take the Finnish city, we could actually have a real Scandinavian presence there.

If the Byzantines are added, they should replace Greece. After a few hundred years, the Byzantines spoke Greek and adopted Greek customs. They should have a UP that raises stability-they survived about a thousand years' worth of attacks that would cause them to collapse under RFC rules. They even mostly survived the loss of their capitol, although one could argue that this is a respawn and not a survival. Maybe this could be represented by a tendency to respawn if the conquering empire gets even moderately unstable until the time when the Turks take over?

If Byzantium is to be represented, it would also make sense to have other civs have a tendency to attack more often. Byzantium got attacked a lot by Western and Eastern civs. Unless Leoreth plans to add Orthodoxy, this would be the best way to do that.

 

[The Turk]

I'm all for implementing the Byzantines, but I think there UP should be that their core cannot collapse, like in RFC Europe, which I thought was better then SoI.

BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! NO Polynesia civ, no offense, but its the stupidest idea EVER! We don't need a second Japan (but even worse economically). Not to mention its not EVEN a civilization! All the civilizations that are present have come up with new technologies, have interacted with other civilizations, have produced great monuments and art works (although yes, I know about Polynesian art, but it dosen't compare to Hagia Sophia or the Eiffel Tower). So ya, please no useless Polynesia! It would just be a waste of space.

 

[The Turk]

If Byzantium is to be represented, it would also make sense to have other civs have a tendency to attack more often. Byzantium got attacked a lot by Western and Eastern civs. Unless Leoreth plans to add Orthodoxy, this would be the best way to do that.

First off, yes I agree, non-represented civ's should be represented by city-states, and there should be a LOT of them, and they should be well defended as well.

As for Byzantines, I would personally really like to see Christian Orthodoxy be included into this game, rater than Protestantism or Zoroastrianism; or another religion. Having it would create some interesting scenarios between East and West; not to mention you could include "The Schism", that would reduce "more friendly" attitude, to more suspicious attitude between the two areas.

 

[dcode147]

First off, yes I agree, non-represented civ's should be represented by city-states, and there should be a LOT of them, and they should be well defended as well.

Agreed!

In modern times, there should be one peaceful independent civ that automatically signs open borders and peace agreements after every couple turns and your cities can trade with representing a whole host of minor civs such as Canada, Australia, Finland etc... If a civ declares war on the peaceful independent civ, they will suffer a relations penalty with all other civs such as "-2 you have declared war on a peaceful neighbor!".
Then there should be a hostile independent civ that never has open borders with you (like independent civs now) and represent military powers that aren't exactly weak pushovers such as Libya (actually not just Libya, most of Africa minus Mali and Ethiopia for that matter), some central Asian republics, Cuba etc...

With a lot of independent civs, we could even have a new civic like "union" that makes independent cities 500% more likely to join your empire, other player cities 250% more likely to join your empire, but all cities in dark green stability area have higher maintenance while all cities outside dark green stability area have more stability, have maintenance reduced by 75%, commerce reduced by 50% and production reduced by 90%. Civs with this civic would represent polities such the French Union and the British Commonwealth of Nations. In each these cases, the main center is the base for all the production and commerce, while those cities outside the green security area with the lowered production and maintenance almost represent former colonies, or areas of influence.

 

[AOS9001]

I'm all for implementing the Byzantines, but I think there UP should be that their core cannot collapse, like in RFC Europe, which I thought was better then SoI.

BUT FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! NO Polynesia civ, no offense, but its the stupidest idea EVER! We don't need a second Japan (but even worse economically). Not to mention its not EVEN a civilization! All the civilizations that are present have come up with new technologies, have interacted with other civilizations, have produced great monuments and art works (although yes, I know about Polynesian art, but it dosen't compare to Hagia Sophia or the Eiffel Tower). So ya, please no useless Polynesia! It would just be a waste of space.

That would be a better UP, but what constitutes their core? The Greek stability map isn't the best one for them, if they're gonna be taking over North Africa and Italy.

And Polynesia is a better choice than say, Iroquois or Sioux. The South Pacific is completely empty in every game.

 

[The Turk]

Again, ALL THESE NATIVE INDIANS / IDENGIOUNOUS PEOPLE ARE A BAAAD IDEA. If they failed as a civilization, in Jared Diamond's terms, then they should not be included as a civ. Tough, but true, and I know everyone is thinking it!

As for the Byzantines, their core area, is Anatolia and Greece. At least thats what I would say

 

[AOS9001]

Again, ALL THESE NATIVE INDIANS / IDENGIOUNOUS PEOPLE ARE A BAAAD IDEA. If they failed as a civilization, in Jared Diamond's terms, then they should not be included as a civ. Tough, but true, and I know everyone is thinking it!

As for the Byzantines, their core area, is Anatolia and Greece. At least thats what I would say

Indeed. Better a Civ like Gran Colombia than Polynesia (and better Polynesia than Sioux), but it's all up to Leorth.

And I agree. That means we may need a new stability map for Byzantium then, Anatolia will be a core for both Turks and the ERE. It could cause problems.

 

[DisposableHero]

The Aztec-catapult thing seems to be a bug on Marathon speed. Works on normal and epic.

 

[Sandmonster1989]

I think a good Byzantine power is when they own another civ's core they should suffer less a penalty for their stability or have their UP from RFCE so their core in Greece and Anatolia don't collapse. And maybe call their UP something like the power of Empire or something? Their goals should represent what they wanted to do/tried to do/did. They wanted to keep constantinople and not have it fall to the Turks so... maybe we could represent that? Don't lose the city of Constantinople (ever--even though the French conquered it during a crusade once). Maybe something like conquer/control Rome, Egypt, the Levant and Mesopotamia to show the ambitions of the empire (Justinian died before 600a.d.--just putting that out there). So have them control all that in 1300 OR give them more cities and say they have to defend it. (combine that with the my first suggestion and you'd have something like don't lose a city until 1300 a.d.). If they are created, we should spawn turkey closer to Trebizond (though Turkey didn't conquer it til almost 1500) but it would give the Byzantines a little breathing room, maybe spawn the Turks a few turns earlier, too to give them time to migrate. I mean, the Byzantines will probably have a city closer to Sogut (what a horrible thing to have 4 cities in such a small area!).

And polynesia was a suggestion because that area of the world needs more population--more than just the Khmer. They did sail by all their connected islands to reach Hawaii and the Americas long before the Vikings. They were the best sailors, they were just unkown to the West. They are worth a Civ to replace... say... Babylon or the Phoenecians and could fill in at empty land.

And its not that the Natives failed as a civ.Its that Europe and the Americans were more powerful and they couldn't stand up to us (well, maybe they could've but they were divided). I mean, they had some unique culture but they were thousands of years behind us technologically on so many different things. I don't believe they need representing too much more than what they already have (the natives and the barbarians that roam around the Americas).

 

[AOS9001]

I think a good Byzantine power is when they own another civ's core they should suffer less a penalty for their stability or have their UP from RFCE so their core in Greece and Anatolia don't collapse. And maybe call their UP something like the power of Empire or something? Their goals should represent what they wanted to do/tried to do/did. They wanted to keep constantinople and not have it fall to the Turks so... maybe we could represent that? Don't lose the city of Constantinople (ever--even though the French conquered it during a crusade once). Maybe something like conquer/control Rome, Egypt, the Levant and Mesopotamia to show the ambitions of the empire (Justinian died before 600a.d.--just putting that out there). So have them control all that in 1300 OR give them more cities and say they have to defend it. (combine that with the my first suggestion and you'd have something like don't lose a city until 1300 a.d.). If they are created, we should spawn turkey closer to Trebizond (though Turkey didn't conquer it til almost 1500) but it would give the Byzantines a little breathing room, maybe spawn the Turks a few turns earlier, too to give them time to migrate. I mean, the Byzantines will probably have a city closer to Sogut (what a horrible thing to have 4 cities in such a small area!).

He did die before the game begins, thus why I said re-doing the conquests. Or I think I did... But that is a logical power, no penalty or little penalty for expanding into other Civ's cores as long as you have Constantinople (a bit like the French UP in RFC: Europe). When they lost they to the Franks and Venetians, things got worse.

However, adding in no collapse (which historically makes a lot of sense) would make it a double UP and thus it would be rather unfair.

 

[Sandmonster1989]

Ya, I was just giving a suggestion. And (except for Rome itself), the game starts off with a majority of the Empire intact so reconquering would be kinda hard if u already control all that territory so keeping it in tact would be a more logical choice for a victory condition. I never did like playing as the French in RFCE so I don't remember their power. I did try as the Byzantines and their power was nice. I think that having their core area not collapse would be nice, it would keep them in the game for a long time as an opponent, too.

 

[DisposableHero]

The Japanese 600AD start date intro text still mentions 660BC...

The Chinese also seem extremely stable on 3000BC starts. I'm assuming this is because plague isn't killing off their units, so they can defend themselves against the Mongols?

 

[Cethegus]

Looks like Firaxis was thinking the same thing when they designed the Big Ben for Civ V. They share the same effect with Westminster.

Other things I noticed: after rolling some American starts, it seems more likely than not to see a superpower Arabia. I mean, an empire stretching from Morocco/Tunisia to the shores of Dhaka and Madras. Only once in 20 (600 AD) starts Turkey has managed to hold their own and usurp their southern neighbor. Then again, my civic changes may be to blame so I'd like to know if anyone else shares similiar experiences.

Another thing: it seems that Germany is always running a Golden Age when 1775 rolls over. They don't have a civic they could abuse, Hinduism in their cities (and thus no Taj Mahal) nor any accomplished UHVs. It seems too coincidental to happen so often though, but I don't know what to make of it.
Oh yeah, and I love Wien as Germany's capital. Maybe not in 3000 BC start but at least in the 600 AD one it creates a nice "border" city to oppose the Byzantine culture. Good choice, also blocks the threat of German Poland.

PS: The Vikings also control Aarhus a fair amount of time as well. Looks like all they needed was a push in the right direction.
PSS: All starts were at Emperor, though.

 

[Leoreth]

Hey everyone, sorry for my short absence here. No, it wasn't Civ5 that kept me away; instead, my router decided to die rather spectacularly, and German internet providers are not of the fastest sort when it comes to honoring their guarantees

It's late at night here, so I won't be able to reply to everything here thoroughly (though maybe will do tomorrow). The good thing is - my forced internet abstinence has created a surprising amount of additional free time, which all went into coding.

I concentrated on some older problems as well as recent ones, and think I'm quite ready to release a new version soon. On the additional civ front (which I guess intrigues you most), I have been able to script a Italy respawn and allow the player to switch to them, with the code designed to be easily expanded on every civilization we want to resurrect next (priority on Byzantines, right?). There's just a graphical problem left that I've been unable to solve, but without internet reference that was no surprise. Still missing of course are adapted settler/stability maps, UPs and UHVs; I guess that's more of a project for the version after it.

Attached some pics for Italy's respawn - they look like Rome because I haven't found a distinct coat of arms yet, and it's 760 AD because I don't want to play until 1861 Also see that all city graphics turn to ruins (third picture) after you switch, though there are still cities there (fourth picture), which is the graphic bug I was referring to.

 

[Sandmonster1989]

So, how do u expect you will be working on this mod, Leoreth? Do you expect to switch to the new Civ soon (since it hasn't released in Europe yet)?

Can't wait to try Italy!! Is it ready to play soon?