Esential civs for a TSL Huge Earth experience, post BNW?

[Verified_Confection_Being]

For the purposes of a "true start location map" the empire they controlled is (largely) irrelevant. Rome is clearly European in its true start location, being in central Italy; a peninsula start in central europe that dictates early expansion will be towards europe rather than africa and certainly not asia.
Russia is technically European starting in Moscow but is much more directly open to Asia than Rome for early expansion, and equally open to Europe.
Byzantium is a bit tougher with what is called its true start location, but taking it as constantinople, it is literally both european and asian as you say. In civ starts generally it is placed on the asian side though with a water tile betweeen it and europe lending itself more to immediate asian expansion.

This is of course taking it geographically, which is fairly redundant and arbitrary by grouping things into continents anyway. That's why i've tried to get a good spread throughout the world, and fairly evenly spaced starting locations. I maintained the groupings only to make it clear which civs i've chosen and why

 

[Homusubi]

In order of importance:

-Zulu
-Brazil
-America
-China
-Polynesia
-Songhai
-Indonesia
-Japan
-England
-Russia
-Arabia
-Mongolia

If there are 16 allowed, then add:

-India
-Germany
-France
-Aztecs


Civs that should definitely not be used as they "era-clash" with most of them:

-Egypt
-Greece
-Rome
-Assyria
-Babylon
-Persia (possibly)

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

"era-clash"

Isn't this phrase the entire premise of this game? Why would you want to get rid of civs based on that???

 

[Tahiti1]

I play TSL maps 50% of the time, and I rarely finish them. The only victory conditions I might leave on are Domination and Diplomacy. The reason for this is because I play Civ as more of a historical simulator rather than a game where my objective is to win at all costs.

That being said, BNW will benefit players like me who enjoy the simulation aspect, especially in the later eras where players can utilize the World Congress to act as a United Nations. (I once tried to create the European Union as England by signing Defensive Pacts and DoFs with Spain, France, Germany, and Sweden. When Sweden declared war on Germany, everyone hated me and for going to war with Sweden because I "backstabbed" them )

I use Toft's Flags mod for Civ's to create a more real life feel to the game as well, so hopefully those will be released for the new Civs shortly after the expansion comes out

Now for the list. I like to use modern Civ's that have importance in the world today (sorry Carthage). Exceptions are Civ's that I use to fill gaps in continents. Because Europe is cluttered as is, I don't include city states.

Civ's that have a * would be used if I was using the 34 Civ Mod
Americas
1. America
2. Aztecs (acting as Mexico)
3. Brazil

*Inca
*Iroquois
*Maya

Europe
4. England
5. Spain/Portugal
6. France
7. Germany/Poland
8. Greece
9. Russia
10. Sweden

*Netherlands
*Poland/Germany
*Rome (Italy)'
*Spain/Portugal

Africa
11. Morocco
12. Ethiopia
13. Zulu
14. Songhai (acting as Mali)

*Carthage


Middle East
15. Arabia
16. Persia

*Ottomans (Turkey)
*Assyria

Asia
17. China
18. Siam (Thailand)
19. Japan
20. India
21. Mongolia
22. Indonesia

*Korea
*Polynesia

 

[Gucumatz]

I largely agree with Seancolorado, i like your spread! (i even liked your format so much i stole it!) I would make a few changes though... Here's my justification:

North and South America account for 29% of the worlds land mass (about a 16.5:12.5 split).
Asia accounts for another 30%
Europe (to the urals and caucasus) accounts for about 7%
Africa accounts for another 20%
Oceania (Australia and the pacific islands) accounts for another 5%
Antartica accounts for around 9% - this portion is written off for obvious reasons

That leaves a good 91% of the earths land mass inhabited by civilizations. For a good fair game, i'd want a good fair spread where everyone has around the same competition and area to expand.

So with 22 civs, that means roughly 1 civ for every 4% of earths land mass. That will account for 88% of the land mass, and the extra awkward 3% can just be cut from asia and north america because of the crazy tundra. So for a good map spread here are my choices:

Spoiler :

Americas, 6 civs:

1. Iroquois: Starting around the Eastern Great Lakes
2. Aztecs: Starting in Northern Mexico (historically the Nahua people migrated south from northern mexico to found th aztec empire)
3. [Speculated North American civ]: Starting in a midwestern/western location, depending on the civ. Probably positioned slightly more north than historically located.
4. Maya: Starting in southern Guatemala/Honduras for expansion into South America
5. Brazil: Positioned in very southern Brazil, around Sao Paulo/rio
6. Inca: Positioned in western mid Peru

Europe, 2 civs:

7. France/Germany: I'd prefer France to give a bit more space between this civ and Russia/Ottomans
8. Russia: Starting in Moscow region, also allows for Asian expansion

Africa 5 civs:

9. Morocco/Carthage: Either would do allowing for African and European expansion
10. Egypt: potential for asian, european and african expansion, not trapped in a peninsula like arabia
11. Ethiopia: filling out the east
12. Songhai: filling out the west
13. Zulu: filling out the south


Asia and Oceania, 9 civs:

14: Ottomans/Byzantium: i would prefer the ottomans, but the fit the same spot
15: Babylon/Assyria: I would prefer Babylon starting in Iraq for some more distance from the ottomans/byzantium
16: Persia: starting north of modern day iran, close to the caspian sea for a more competitive central asia and easing the pressure on the middle east.
17. Mongolia: starting in central mongolia to fill out the plains
18. China: starting in north east china
19. India: starting in north/north west india
20. Siam: Starting in northern thailand/myanmar
21. Indonesia: Starting on java for distance from siam
22. Polynesia: starting probably in New zealand allowing for some more expansion opportunities and greater competition for indonesia


Civs not listed at all:
America - Trying to avoid the european american civs (bitten the bullet for brazil) and occupies a similar location to the Iroquois
Arabia: caught in a peninsula in a cluttered area
England - island civs generally have difficultly expanding, particularly near continental civs who can much easier, also limited space in europe
Celts - Same as above
Spain - Too close to Morocco, not enough space in europe
Portugal - Same as Spain
Germany - Too close to france, europe problem
Sweden - Icy area not often settled by the human player
Denmark - Same as above
Huns - No need for them
Austria - too close to germany
[Venice] - cluttered europe
Rome - "
Netherlands - "
Poland - "
Greece - too close to ottomans
Korea - Could have been China or Korea, but China is too important to leave out
Japan - They start on a relatively small 'island'. Unlike Indonesia and Polynesia, no UA incentive to justify

I really like your map/choices. Yea Europe is waaay too small to have many civs for a TSL map. I chose 4 civs, but seeing that map for my next one I might even reduce it to 2-3 European civs

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I really like your map/choices. Yea Europe is waaay too small to have many civs for a TSL map. I chose 4 civs, but seeing that map for my next one I might even reduce it to 2-3 European civs

Thank you! I've tried to keep the competitive atmosphere around Europe a little with Morocco and the Ottomans, which can half count as European civs. There is still space though, which is what i've found Europe lacks.

There is a certain element of mix and match you can get around Europe and the middle east too given how many civs we have around there. So you're not necessarily tied down to France, Russia, Ottomans, Egypt and Babylon

When there is too much space elsewhere it's so easy to steam roll ahead too, and it even gets a little boring on your own, so it's better to increase the number of civs elsewhere too

 

[JtW]

I don't get why so many people want America on a TSL map. If I play a TSL map, I want to feel like I create some form of alternative history. A civilization that young would break immersion for me.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I largely agree with Seancolorado, i like your spread! (i even liked your format so much i stole it!) I would make a few changes though... Here's my justification:

North and South America account for 29% of the worlds land mass (about a 16.5:12.5 split).
Asia accounts for another 30%
Europe (to the urals and caucasus) accounts for about 7%
Africa accounts for another 20%
Oceania (Australia and the pacific islands) accounts for another 5%
Antartica accounts for around 9% - this portion is written off for obvious reasons

That leaves a good 91% of the earths land mass inhabited by civilizations. For a good fair game, i'd want a good fair spread where everyone has around the same competition and area to expand.

So with 22 civs, that means roughly 1 civ for every 4% of earths land mass. That will account for 88% of the land mass, and the extra awkward 3% can just be cut from asia and north america because of the crazy tundra. So for a good map spread here are my choices:

Spoiler :

Americas, 6 civs:

1. Iroquois: Starting around the Eastern Great Lakes
2. Aztecs: Starting in Northern Mexico (historically the Nahua people migrated south from northern mexico to found th aztec empire)
3. [Speculated North American civ]: Starting in a midwestern/western location, depending on the civ. Probably positioned slightly more north than historically located.
4. Maya: Starting in southern Guatemala/Honduras for expansion into South America
5. Brazil: Positioned in very southern Brazil, around Sao Paulo/rio
6. Inca: Positioned in western mid Peru

Europe, 2 civs:

7. France/Germany: I'd prefer France to give a bit more space between this civ and Russia/Ottomans
8. Russia: Starting in Moscow region, also allows for Asian expansion

Africa 5 civs:

9. Morocco/Carthage: Either would do allowing for African and European expansion
10. Egypt: potential for asian, european and african expansion, not trapped in a peninsula like arabia
11. Ethiopia: filling out the east
12. Songhai: filling out the west
13. Zulu: filling out the south


Asia and Oceania, 9 civs:

14: Ottomans/Byzantium: i would prefer the ottomans, but the fit the same spot
15: Babylon/Assyria: I would prefer Babylon starting in Iraq for some more distance from the ottomans/byzantium
16: Persia: starting north of modern day iran, close to the caspian sea for a more competitive central asia and easing the pressure on the middle east.
17. Mongolia: starting in central mongolia to fill out the plains
18. China: starting in north east china
19. India: starting in north/north west india
20. Siam: Starting in northern thailand/myanmar
21. Indonesia: Starting on java for distance from siam
22. Polynesia: starting probably in New zealand allowing for some more expansion opportunities and greater competition for indonesia


Civs not listed at all:
America - Trying to avoid the european american civs (bitten the bullet for brazil) and occupies a similar location to the Iroquois
Arabia: caught in a peninsula in a cluttered area
England - island civs generally have difficultly expanding, particularly near continental civs who can much easier, also limited space in europe
Celts - Same as above
Spain - Too close to Morocco, not enough space in europe
Portugal - Same as Spain
Germany - Too close to france, europe problem
Sweden - Icy area not often settled by the human player
Denmark - Same as above
Huns - No need for them
Austria - too close to germany
[Venice] - cluttered europe
Rome - "
Netherlands - "
Poland - "
Greece - too close to ottomans
Korea - Could have been China or Korea, but China is too important to leave out
Japan - They start on a relatively small 'island'. Unlike Indonesia and Polynesia, no UA incentive to justify

What about the Huns in your "Persia" position. They'd probably be easier to justify in that geographic position.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

What about the Huns in your "Persia" position. They'd probably be easier to justify in that geographic position.

I don't think it would necessarily be easier to justify, Persia has had many incarnations and generally controlled a lot of land in central asia, including the dot where i stuck them. It's not like they are unjustifiable there.

The huns are another option, i'll give you that, but seeing as they were migratory and didn't really stick around there, they wouldn't be my preference personally Then again, i don't really like them in civ at all (at least not without a specific system to accommodate nomads - which would be awesome and then i would love them)

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Why doesn't somebody make an application where you tell it what civs you want and it churns out the mod files?

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Why doesn't somebody make an application where you tell it what civs you want and it churns out the mod files?

Because then they would win the internet and we would never be allowed back

 

[Yzman]

I don't get why so many people want America on a TSL map. If I play a TSL map, I want to feel like I create some form of alternative history. A civilization that young would break immersion for me.

For me, it is all about geographic locations. Even using all available American civs, there is plenty of room in the Americas. I would rather use America who has potential to expand, as opposed to England, who is not likely to expand far due to very limited space in Europe.

 

[Scauthra]

I love Earth Maps the most. And while I like all the full coverage ideas, I also greatly enjoy the idea of a 'new world' to go to.

1. England (or celts to change it up)
2. Rome
3. Germany
4. France
5. Denmark
6. Poland
7. Portugal
8. Russia
9. Ottomans (Or Byzantine)
10. Arabia (Or Babylon to change it up)
11. Egypt (Or Carthage)
12. Morocco
13. Zulu
14. Ethiopia
15. China
16. Japan
17. Siam
18. Indonesia
19. Mongolia (Or Huns to make europe hilarious)
20. Korea
21. India
22. Persia

I tried to make Europe less of a cluster. After doing that the only civs you are really missing are Carthage in North Africa, other euro civs clumped up together and then everything on the new world. As it goes, all three parts of the old world, Africa, Europe and Asia have plenty of civs to compete, conquer, trade and explore with. Only inward civs would truly have problems, which is just Mongolia since all other 21 civs have a coast they can reach, unless Russia gets blocked off early by Denmark.

 

[altayrneto]

I love Earth maps too, but I prefer play with civs of the same era. I love make Carthage won the Punnic Wars, while Greece is conquered by Persia. But when America come and help the Babilons to dominate the celts...

 

[Veneke]

I largely agree with Seancolorado, i like your spread! (i even liked your format so much i stole it!) I would make a few changes though... Here's my justification:

North and South America account for 29% of the worlds land mass (about a 16.5:12.5 split).
Asia accounts for another 30%
Europe (to the urals and caucasus) accounts for about 7%
Africa accounts for another 20%
Oceania (Australia and the pacific islands) accounts for another 5%
Antartica accounts for around 9% - this portion is written off for obvious reasons

...

To be fair, it is common practice for TSL maps to upscale Europe (and typically Japan as well) to mitigate the worst of that. It's still usually pretty tight but it does throw your numbers off somewhat.

My own list:

Americas
Iroqouis
Maya
America
Inca
Brazil

Africa
Zulu
Songhai
Morocco
Egypt


Europe
England
France
Portugal
Sweden
Germany
Ottomans
Russia

Asia
Arabia
Assyria
India
Japan
China
Mongolia

Civs not included
Americas
Aztecs - In my experience on a TSL map Monty can usually conquer the New World but subsequently fails to do anything with it.

Africa
Ethiopia - This comes down to a matter of geography more than anything else.


Europe
Celts - England struggles as is and this is with England's AI geared towards islands. The English are also far more iconic than the mish-mash we have with the Celts.
Rome - There's never enough space in Europe. Dropping Rome though means you can include the Vatican and given that there are plenty of replacements for Civs in Europe but less for religious city-states it's an unfortunately easy one to drop.
Spain - Spain or Portugal? Spain typically wastes its UA and it's UUs are not terribly poweful. Europe cannot afford weak Civs.
Denmark - The fact that it's DLC does count against it in my eyes but otherwise mainland Europe is just a little too cramped and Sweden will do a better job filling out Scandanavia.
Austria - It's UA is ridiculously OP still and on a cramped start in Europe that's only going to make it more apparent.
Byzantium - It was a choice between them and the Ottomans. With Piety coming earlier maybe they'll be better but the Ottomans I've found to be typically superior in their historical starting position.
Poland - Really didn't want to drop these but reached the 22 Civ limit and Byzantium or Ottomans had to be in...
Netherlands - Geography speaks volumes. There just isn't enough room to make it viable in Europe.


Asia
Persia - Difficult choice but with 22 Civs and Kabul as an incoming CS replacement...
Babylon - DLC Civ and Assyria is not.
Siam - You can do interesting things in Southeast Asia if you leave Siam out, like flood it with city-states.
Korea - Not half enough room, even in Asia.
Huns - I just don't even know what they were thinking with this. On a TSL map they break immersion, badly.
Polynesia - The AI fails horribly with Polynesia.
Indonesia - Much the same as Siam, though I expect the AI to fail with Indonesia much like it does with Polynesia.

 

[jye42]

I play Civ as more of a historical simulator rather than a game where my objective is to win at all costs.

Your playing the wrong game. Have you tried Paradox Games; Crusader Kings, Victoria, Europa Universals.etc they are much better historical simulators.

I play both those and Civ, for me civ is very based on victory conditions, whereas Paradox games are more like a historical sandbox.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

I don't get why so many people want America on a TSL map. If I play a TSL map, I want to feel like I create some form of alternative history. A civilization that young would break immersion for me.

Germany- founded 1872
Zulu people- 1709 empire 1816
Iroqoius confederacy- 1722
And lots of leaders born far after the US. Do these break immersion?

 

[JtW]

Germany- founded 1872
Zulu people- 1709 empire 1816
Iroqoius confederacy- 1722
And lots of leaders born far after the US. Do these break immersion?

For me there is a world of difference.

All three nations you've mentioned: Germans, Zulu and Iroquois, have lived where their civ starts the game for thousands of years. Had history gone differently, they might have created a strong empire in the ancient era. Whereas America is a European implant on the formerly American Indian territory. For me, America on a TSL map would be like having the Apartheid Dutch-speaking South Africa instead of the Zulu. Or like having English-speaking Australia as a civ.

In general, I have no beef with America, and I play them and against them. But they just don't fit a TSL Earth map.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

To be fair, it is common practice for TSL maps to upscale Europe (and typically Japan as well) to mitigate the worst of that. It's still usually pretty tight but it does throw your numbers off somewhat.

Fair point, but to me that seems wildly mad now that we have enough civs for an adequate world spread.

If I ever make a TSL map, Europe will have to deal with it's size and be proud with it. After all it's not how big it is, it's what you do with it.

 

[Sikandar]

My methodology was to select those civs that would maximize the potential for territorial expansion for all included civs. I concluded that 18 is optimal considering the real-world placement of civs.

Brazilians
Carthaginians
Chinese
Egyptians
Ethiopians
French
Greeks
Incas
Indians
Indonesians
Iroquois
Mayas
Mongols
Persians
Polynesians
Russians
Songhai
Zulus