Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by Pavel Chichikov, Nov 20, 2012.
The Khazars were special for being Jews
I think we need a larger map first.
Just go all out and use GEM.
Leoreth has expressed his distaste of GEM before though.
I think this goes of the topic - but...
I did not mean that Armenia was always independent. I meant there have been Armenia as province etc. when Armenia was not independent to contrast for example Babylonia which only lives now days in history books...
And about Persia / Iran. There are continuity from Cyrus the Great to present day Iran. Again wikipedia link...
So are you saying that we should include Armenia as an independent playable civ because they were a province of various empires for most of the last 2000 years? If so, this is tenuous reasoning at best.
On the subject of Babylon not being referred to today, a province in Iraq is called Babylonia which incorporates the location of the ancient city. That's not just in a history book, that's currently the situation.
Sorry, but you're still not making sense to me.
Being Armenian myself I have to unite with those who say that few rocky tiles in the crowded region do not need another civilization Global mods require civilizations which left global impact. If you ask me we got too many civs already,I mean somebody said this is not a kitchen sink mod, if you remember . Regional civs are best for regional maps. I am perfectly happy with SoI and Classical World representations of my Civ .
New Zealand looks kind of empty, Maori Civilization, anyone?
Dzhigit is not even Armenian name, it has Turkic origin. Armenians never used that word to describe any cavalry historically Azatavrear or Ayrudzi could be a word you were looking for.
I would love a larger map, but it would still need to be custom with chunks of the oceans cut out and Europe still enlarged although probably not quite as large a percentage.
I know, they would be representing Caucasian region in general (although Armenia is technically Indo-European) and Dzhigit is the most well-known name, like Cossacks are for Russia even though they were Ukrainian or Tartar. I was thinking Georgian Mkhedrioni might be better, but that has bad connotations now.
Տիգրան. Որ ոչ շատ հայրենասեր. Դեռ լավ է, քան Տիբեթից!
I see things differently, if a place is empty of core Civs doesn't mean it has to be filled, and vice versa.
I was thinking a Civ in the caucasus would actually help Persia, would be a developed vassal blocking those barbs mentioned.
The other goals idea was making UHV dependent of helping to keep other Civs alive, (and convert 1) I thought it would be an interesting goal. They'd spawn to late to settle in Mesopotamia also.
I forget the Orthodoxy thing, I always swap the python around for Roman & Greek Christianities.
Anyway, most 600 AD games it wouldn't appear, but I think it would add some flavour to earlier starts and make interesting Polandesque player gameplay.
and yo blizzrd, that's not really comparable. Nobody speaks Babylonian anymore, the only remnants of the indigenous Mesopotamian cultures are some tiny heavily-persecuted minorities of Assyrian Christians and a few Mandeans, both of which have nearly all left after the 2003 war. Armenia is now an independent country that survived genocide and centuries of foreign occupation. Unlike Tibet.
Off the topic.
My original point was that it would be nice to have Armenia because I would like to see in my game triangle geopolitical power game between Armenia, Rome and Persia.
BUT like always when talking about adding new civilization to game there have to be other reasons too than “would be nice”. It is long list of civilizations that would be nice to have in game. But game balance, AI, map size, etc. make hard to add new civilizations as we all know.
Armenia is in my “top ten list” what civilization could be add to DoC. (And I mean could not should.)
Even that they have only been independent just little more than thousand years name Armenia just keep popping up during in many interesting historical events…
And unlike for example Ireland they have been regional superpower…
And about Babylon - it is big difference. Like Pavel wrote.
And very important point – because many people including me often confuse these two names:
Babylon is the city
Babylonia is the empire
The province name in Iraq (Babil Governorate) come from Babylon City not Babylonia empire or civilization.
Babylon City is alive and kicking – well it is actually huge outdoor museum or at least was in April 2002 when I was there.
One trivial information which maybe some how could even use in DoC – do not ask how .
Every ruler who has control Babylon City has carved his/her name to brick which is added to wall. I know for sure that Saddam Hussein had his name but I do not know did George W. Bush add his name for long list of rulers of Babylon City.
Survival of language is not the major determinant for a civilization. Outside the Vatican, no nation speaks Latin today either but the concept of the area of Roman influence is still well understood.
On the subject of Armenia now being an independent country: the presence of an independent country in today's era of Nationalism and post-colonialism should not actually be a consideration for what makes a 'civilization'. If it was, then we would have 200+ candidates for 'civilization' status which is just silly.
edit: Disagree. Language is the determining factor. So although Ireland is country, I consider the Celtic Civilization to be moribund or dead for the main reason that only tiny pockets speak Gaelic and Welsh is the first language of less than a quarter of wales.
Only need to look at Jewish history to see how much impact language has in a peoples fortunes.
Latin also has a close descendent in Italian and it's offshoots. Mesopotamian descedents like Syriac, Aramaic and Assyrian are dead or dying. Roman peoples were never scattered and assimilated by a radically different society like the pre-Islamic peoples of the Middle-East.
I do think that's too off-topic Zaduzai, as long as we are talking about relevant history and avoid personal insults any interesting discussion is welcome.
The power-triangle is exactly what appeals to me too, I love the idea of smaller 3rd parties radically tipping the balance between 2 fighting superpowers whether Persia/Greece/Rome or Byzantium/Arabs/Turkey.
The main reason for the pleased relations UHV is that I think it would be unique to have to have your fortune dependent on helping bigbrother neighbors against your powerful enemies. Poland doesn't really have that because that just get gobbled by 3 Prussia/Austria/Russia.
Wow. You were there? From what I know defato-independent Kurdistan is actually safer than most Middle-Eastern countries, we only have to see what happened in the past 2 years...
Always a fan of more minor civilizations.
They don't detract anything from the larger dynamics of the game, and spice things up for the local great powers.
I think Armenia would be a fantastic choice, alongside previously discussed civs like the Polynesians and Khazars.
I think root of the problem is that how to define civilization in game.
In this Armenia case for example: there were some times same time Major Armenia and Minor Armenia which make things little bit confusing.
But bigger problem is that we modern people give names and definitions from our perspective. In many cases in history in specially Middle East the name of ruler or dynasty was much more important than name of kingdom / empire.
I ran to that problem when I made list for Persian/Iran to Civ-specific ranks collection thread.
For example Timur is counted as one of Persian historical leaders but same time it could be at least DoC context Mongol leader or maybe even Turkish. So was he ruling Persia empire or Mongol empire? I think 100% correct answer would be that he ruled Timur empire but I do not think we going to see Timur empire in DoC.
Off-topic for this thread, but well... Timur I can't think of many more people in history that caused more suffering for the Iranian peoples.
Major & Minor Armenia differences are just geographic though, they spoke (The Turks took care of that) the same (Western & Eastern dialects are easily intelligable unless you get someone with a horrific accent) language, use the same unique Alphabet ect.
I like this quite a lot. I would like to add that minor civilizations that play out and die out before ~1700 most of the time wouldn't add significantly to the slowness of the game. It's at this time that turn waits really start to ramp up, from my experience and from what I ascertain of others'. Tibet is an example of this, and also one of my favourite civs. It didn't have a big global impact in real life and never does in the hands of the AI but it's a lot of fun to play. Khmer and Thailand exist in the exact same area, but because one runs its course before the other, both can be included. I feel like we needn't be so stingy when it comes to new civs, especially in earlier times. Armenia, Khazars and Polynesia (and many of the Central Asian civs one could pick from) would all have run their course by around this time, and would all be a lot of fun if executed well, just as Tibet was.
Even after 1700 I'm not entirely sure we need to blame the number of civs entirely for the slowness, since this is the time when the world starts really filling up the empty areas with cities of increasing population, there's often world wars with lots of unit movement and battle, there's been and is and will be a fairly constant increase in the number of ships sailing the seas, corporations cover the globe and presumably these things all add up to longer wait times. Perhaps someone else does know just what causes the slowness, but I don't. If I'm right in thinking it's more of a mixed bag, a South African civ, Australia, a later Central Asian civ and the new New World civs Leoreth plans to add might not actually add to the wait times significantly.
I'm not totally sure what new civs I would like to see added and with this post I'm not trying to specifically advocate any of them. I simply think people should be more open to the idea of new civs in general. And I repeat, especially before 1700.
That doesn't warrant the inclusion of a new religion.
Or it could be part of their UP to remain without an official religion (they were quite a tolerant society), and their UB could be something jewish
I wouldn't mind seeing Armenia, but Pavel proposing it would nearly put Leoreth off. You can't post constructively about why a civ should be in the game without having a go at others that have been included, its a stupid way propose a new civ.
Separate names with a comma.