Feedback: Civilizations

Simon_Jester · Mar 4, 2012

davidtylr said:
The aboriginals didn't get into farming or animal training because they were a race always on the move. Because of the harsh australian climate the whole tribe moved from place to place.

That was a universal constant of the human condition for most of the species's history. In most parts of the world, either the nomadic hunter-gatherers eventually settled down in relatively nice places and started building towns, or were pushed aside by other town-building peoples.

For the Australian aborigines, that didn't have a chance to happen until foreign colonists showed up to take the place away from them.

They never really settled anywhere permanent. The aborigines were said to be the first to develop tools and some of the worlds oldest paintings and carving are in Australia.

The aborigines were not the first to develop tools; homo habilis and homo erectus were using tools at a point in the past ten or twenty times longer ago than the human settlement of Australia.

Also, the old paintings and carvings are a consequence of the Australian climate- put something on a rock face in Australia where it's sheltered from wind erosion and it will last a long time. Similar art exists on other continents (cave paintings), but not so much of it survives.

Xyth said:
The Iroquois UU is a Musketman replacement. Point taken though.

Well, just on general principles I'd like to see more civilizations have unique units in the post-gunpowder "beyond the sword" era. It's not actually so bad as it is, there are plenty of civilizations that do. But since personally I like to fight wars in the modernish era, I like it when there's more distinctiveness and diversity from having unique units there.

Put it this way: how many Archer, Axeman, Swordsman, and Knight replacements are there in the game, compared to the number of Rifleman or Infantry replacements?

Unfortunately, I'm having trouble thinking of specific examples of where it would make sense.

Skidizzle · Mar 6, 2012

I think that in Europe and Asia, you've pretty much saturated the market. Guys like the Bulgars, Uighurs, and Armenians just don't add all that much: they never occupied much land, won great victories, or achieved any great heights of economic or cultural glory. They spent their history in the shadow of other empires, so what's the point?

At best the Bulgars are a footnote/splinter of the current Hungarian Civ you have in the mod. The one civ you're considering cutting. So why add them?

The technological level of the Australian Aborigines at the time of first European contact was Neolithic, and lagged a long way behind that of, for instance, New Guinea, which isn't represented in the game. There were few (any?) permanent settlements, no agriculture and no domesticated animals (OK, dogs), no stonework (possibly pottery, but not brickwork) so no buildings, no archery and no use of metals. There was, in HR1.16 terms: Hunting, Carving and Fishing.

Amazing culture and people but just too far outside the scope of the game to include, despite their geographical niche.

As for candidates for civilizations, The Aborigines are a joke. Not only for their lack of urbanization, utilization of basic agriculture, or system of writing, but also by their complete lack of government. Every civ in the game can at least claim 3 of these benchmarks.

As for your civ proposal list I completely agree with your selections of Kongo, Anasazi, and Braziland.

Perhaps the Tamoio Confederation of native and mixed peoples that united against colonial slavery? I'd like to see the Brazil civ be more native, to distinguish it from the Portuguese.

As for the forth civ It should definitely be the Khazar. If it weren't for the Khazar tenaciously defending the Caucasus and their Byzantine allies it's very likely that the armies of Islam would have conquered much of Europe and completely changed history as we know it. The added flavor of having Judaism as a state religion (as few exist) only makes the choice more appealing. They have the historical merit to be included.

Xyth · Mar 6, 2012

davidtylr said:
I did a little bit of research. I think William The Conqueror is the best. There are some good art work on him. Tell me what you think.

Artwise, the Arthur leaderhead is by far the best quality. It seems generic enough to rename as someone else. It's easy to change the backdrop as needed and I can probably also change the hue of his armour to a more suitable colour. Assuming we don't want Arthur, who else does that leaderhead resemble? (Link)

Keinpferd said:
Is it at all necessary to dismiss one civ to include the other? Does this still matter, after the total size of a mod has grown above a certain threshold?

BTS preloads a lot of art into memory even when it doesn't need it. For example, all the units from the various mods that come packaged with the game (Final Frontier, Afterworld, etc); they're sitting around wasting memory space even though they're never used in HR or even in standard BTS. It's terrible design and it means that there is no threshold as such - even though you can only have 18 civs in a game at a time, many resources of the civs not in that particular game are still using up valuable memory. Leaderhead art is thankfully not handled in this fashion, but unit and building art is. And since BTS can only make use of 2GB RAM, there is a definite limit to how many civs we can add (short of making them near clones of other civs, which I'm not interested in).

Until I started this unit art optimization process, 50 seemed to be the suitable maximum. With the gains made (I also need to do a building art optimization at some point) I think I can extend that limit to somewhere in the mid 50s. Beyond that, performance is going to degrade.

Simon_Jester said:
Well, just on general principles I'd like to see more civilizations have unique units in the post-gunpowder "beyond the sword" era. It's not actually so bad as it is, there are plenty of civilizations that do. But since personally I like to fight wars in the modernish era, I like it when there's more distinctiveness and diversity from having unique units there.

Put it this way: how many Archer, Axeman, Swordsman, and Knight replacements are there in the game, compared to the number of Rifleman or Infantry replacements?

Unfortunately, I'm having trouble thinking of specific examples of where it would make sense.

I've often pondered the idea of having 2 UUs per civ, preferably in different eras. Would be pretty tough to do for some HR civs though.

Skidizzle said:
Perhaps the Tamoio Confederation of native and mixed peoples that united against colonial slavery? I'd like to see the Brazil civ be more native, to distinguish it from the Portuguese.

I'd still call it Brazil but I'd definitely highlight the native aspect of the civilization as much as I could. Cunhambebe or another Tupi figure would be one of the leaders for sure.

As for the forth civ It should definitely be the Khazar. If it weren't for the Khazar tenaciously defending the Caucasus and their Byzantine allies it's very likely that the armies of Islam would have conquered much of Europe and completely changed history as we know it. The added flavor of having Judaism as a state religion (as few exist) only makes the choice more appealing. They have the historical merit to be included.

The Khazar are definitely appealing more and more. Once I've got 1.17 finished I'd like to do some more research on them.

Simon_Jester · Mar 7, 2012

Xyth said:
I've often pondered the idea of having 2 UUs per civ, preferably in different eras. Would be pretty tough to do for some HR civs though.

I don't think that's ideal, since most civilizations aren't so outstanding as to need it. I'd be interested to hear what choices you think would be appropriate, though.

What I mean is that you might give a few more specific civs gunpowder and post-gunpowder unique units. I'm not exactly sure which, it's not an easy choice to make, and I'd be happier with a chance to talk over any conclusions you come to before you implement them since I'm the modern warfare geek.

It doesn't help that I still can't find my CD of the game...

davidtylr · Mar 7, 2012

Xyth said:
Artwise, the Arthur leaderhead is by far the best quality. It seems generic enough to rename as someone else. It's easy to change the backdrop as needed and I can probably also change the hue of his armour to a more suitable colour. Assuming we don't want Arthur, who else does that leaderhead resemble? (Link)

He could be Henry II. I think it looks more Henry II then Arthur anyway.

Xyth · Mar 7, 2012

Simon_Jester said:
I don't think that's ideal, since most civilizations aren't so outstanding as to need it. I'd be interested to hear what choices you think would be appropriate, though.

What I mean is that you might give a few more specific civs gunpowder and post-gunpowder unique units. I'm not exactly sure which, it's not an easy choice to make, and I'd be happier with a chance to talk over any conclusions you come to before you implement them since I'm the modern warfare geek.

It's not really something I've given much detailed thought to, more just a vague idea that might be worth considering one day and just as easily not.

It doesn't help that I still can't find my CD of the game...

davidtylr said:
He could be Henry II. I think it looks more Henry II then Arthur anyway.

I'm starting to lean toward making him Richard the Lionheart. The armour certainly suits a more martial monarch and I can easily free up the Spiritual/Tactical trait combination for him, which creates an interesting contrast to the other English leaders.

Eucalyptus · Mar 9, 2012

Xyth said:
The Inca already have a Terrace UB, which replaces the granary. Not a bad idea though, I'll have to have a think about that.

OK then, could this be "Irrigation Terrace"?

davidtylr · Mar 10, 2012

Xyth said:
I'm starting to lean toward making him Richard the Lionheart. The armour certainly suits a more martial monarch and I can easily free up the Spiritual/Tactical trait combination for him, which creates an interesting contrast to the other English leaders.

That sounds even better.

Absolution · Mar 10, 2012

The Israeli citylist need alot of changes.
You made a mix of Enlglish and Hebrew names.
You also put there many cities which have never been Israeli, and have just been mentioned in the bible in a different context, or even as enemies of Israel.
Many of the cities you put there are new cities founded in the last century. And we are talking about the Ancient Israeli civilization, not the modern one.
So I built a new citylist, put alot of Ancient Israeli cities, deleted unrelevant cites, and reorganized the list in a new order which makes much more sense.
I think you ought to adopt this list as it is.

<City>Jerusalem</City>
<City>Shilo</City>
<City>Hebron</City>
<City>Shechem</City>
<City>Jericho</City>
<City>Beersheba </City>
<City>Bethel</City>
<City>Bethshemesh</City>
<City>Modi'im</City>
<City>Gezer</City
<City>Ramoth_Gile'ad </City>
<City>Dan</City>
<City>Lachish</City>
<City>Bethlehem</City>
<City>Ta'anach</City>
<City>Jezreel</City>
<City>Gibeon</City>
<City>Tirzah</City>
<City>Ai</City>
<City>Heshbon</City>
<City>Kiriath_Je'arim</City>
<City>Dor</City>
<City>Be'eroth</City>
<City>Jabni'el</City>
<City>Succoth</City>
<City>Aphik</City>
<City>Jezreel</City>
<City>Beneberak</City>
<City>Khatzor</City>
<City>Penuel</City>
<City>Mizpah</City>
<City>Eilat</City>
<City>Jaffa</City>
<City>Eglon</City>
<City>Aphek</City>
<City>Kefira</City>
<City>Debir</City>
<City>Joqne'am</City>
<City>Ein_Gedi</City>
<City>Jarmouth</City>
<City>Adullam</City>
<City>Makhanaim</City>
<City>Japhia</City>
<City>Safed</City>>
<City>Makeda</City>
<City>Megiddo</City>
<City>Arad</City>
<City>Horma</City>
<City>Lod</City>
<City>Kanna</City>
<City>Kadesh_Barne'a</City>
<City>Ekron</City>
<City>Tapuakh</City>
<City>Ashqelon</City>

Simon_Jester · Mar 10, 2012

Absolution said:
The Israeli citylist need alot of changes.
You made a mix of Enlglish and Hebrew names.
You also put there many cities which have never been Israeli, and have just been mentioned in the bible in a different context, or even as enemies of Israel.
Many of the cities you put there are new cities founded in the last century. And we are talking about the Ancient Israeli civilization, not the modern one...

Are we? I can think of worse ideas than to use "modern Israeli army" unit art for the civ's advanced units, and stick Golda Meir or someone in as a leader...

Xyth · Mar 10, 2012

Absolution said:
The Israeli citylist need alot of changes.
You made a mix of Enlglish and Hebrew names.
You also put there many cities which have never been Israeli, and have just been mentioned in the bible in a different context, or even as enemies of Israel.
Many of the cities you put there are new cities founded in the last century. And we are talking about the Ancient Israeli civilization, not the modern one.
So I built a new citylist, put alot of Ancient Israeli cities, deleted unrelevant cites, and reorganized the list in a new order which makes much more sense.
I think you ought to adopt this list as it is.

I borrowed the current Israeli city list straight out of another mod without any changes. I often do that to save time when adding a new civ, with the intention of reviewing the list at a later time. I hadn't had a chance to review the Israeli list yet so I'll definitely replace it with the list you've supplied. Thanks!

Simon_Jester said:
Are we? I can think of worse ideas than to use "modern Israeli army" unit art for the civ's advanced units, and stick Golda Meir or someone in as a leader...

The civilization is primarily based on the ancient one but its reasonable for continuity to be presumed through to the modern one. I don't have any plans to add a 4th leader to the civilization though.

Keinpferd · Mar 11, 2012

Absolution, one question, did you arrange your cities in a probable order of foundation of ancient Jewish settlements?

And is your city list based primarily on ancient names while at the same time considering newer historical developments or rather dedicated to only ancient history?

To cut it short, here is a city list, that we're using in Pie' Ancient Europe:

Spoiler :

Can't remember, who provided it, but I'd like to hear your opinion on it. If you say, just go ahead and replace it with mine instead, I'd trust you with that

.

Xyth, please excuse misusing a HR-thread for a question not directly related to HR!

Absolution · Mar 12, 2012

I arranged the cities in an order of importance.
In the list you brought here there are some good cities to add (like Marissa and Rama), but all in all that list is not good at all. It has alot of new cities and Zionist settlements, some Mediterranean which are not even close to Iisrael, and even invented cities..

I will add what is needed.
Here is the complete list:

Spoiler :

And the names - Usually you hear about ancient cities in their Greek or Latin name, which is not a translation or a version of the original name, but a new name the Romans / Greeks invented.
In the game, they usually put an English version for the original name (except for Egyptian cities).
So I did what they do. I put the English version for the Hebrew name (Yerushalayim ->Jersualem, Yizra'el ->Jezreel, Tzippori ->Sepphoris) but not the Greek name which has no connection to Hebrew (Shchem ->Nablus, Tzippori ->Dioceserea).

Keinpferd · Mar 13, 2012

Absolution said:
And the names - Usually you hear about ancient cities in their Greek or Latin name, which is not a translation or a version of the original name, but a new name the Romans / Greeks invented.
In the game, they usually put an English version for the original name (except for Egyptian cities).
So I did what they do. I put the English version for the Hebrew name (Yerushalayim ->Jersualem, Yizra'el ->Jezreel, Tzippori ->Sepphoris) but not the Greek name which has no connection to Hebrew (Shchem ->Nablus, Tzippori ->Dioceserea).

It's back in the past of HR's original thread, before there was a subforum, that some people around here stated, they were going to translate HR into French and German, one day. Although very few people would probably notice, a few cities transliterate into these languages a little differently than in English. For example, the important ancient city Shechem is Sichem both in German in French. And Jezreel sounds a little too English to my ears, too. I wouldn't rule out Greek and Latin names categorically, if they are, let's say, "global cultural heritage". But that's just a thought, thank you for the revised list, in the first place!

Keinpferd · Mar 22, 2012

I'd like to throw in another possible civ for History Rewritten, that came to my attention, when I browsed through Realism Invictus. They decided to split India into a northern "Hindustan" India and a southern "Dravidian" India. I wasn't aware, how different they were, ethnically, culturally and notably linguistically, one belonging to the Indo-Aryan, one to the Dravidian language family. The Dravidian Indians played an interesting role in the migration and colonization of Southeastern Asia. And since RI took the time and effort to create distinguishable unit art for the Dravidians and made it easy to incorporate them in a mod, it would be fair to devote a second civ to a subcontinent of a 1.2 billion share of today's world population. Just one more candidate

.

Simon_Jester · Mar 22, 2012

Actually, yes, the Dravidians are a good candidate for an Indian civ, that makes perfect sense to me. I wish I'd thought to suggest it myself.

Xyth · Mar 23, 2012

Keinpferd said:
I'd like to throw in another possible civ for History Rewritten, that came to my attention, when I browsed through Realism Invictus. They decided to split India into a northern "Hindustan" India and a southern "Dravidian" India. I wasn't aware, how different they were, ethnically, culturally and notably linguistically, one belonging to the Indo-Aryan, one to the Dravidian language family. The Dravidian Indians played an interesting role in the migration and colonization of Southeastern Asia. And since RI took the time and effort to create distinguishable unit art for the Dravidians and made it easy to incorporate them in a mod, it would be fair to devote a second civ to a subcontinent of a 1.2 billion share of today's world population. Just one more candidate.

Simon_Jester said:
Actually, yes, the Dravidians are a good candidate for an Indian civ, that makes perfect sense to me. I wish I'd thought to suggest it myself.

That's who the Tamil civilization is meant to represent. I remember debating at the time whether to call them the Tamil or the Dravidians. I don't recall now why I went with the former, though I have a feeling it was because I thought (erroneously) that 'Dravidian' was just a linguistic term and not a ethnic/cultural one. Perhaps I should rename them. But yeah, already covered! (And getting some great new unit art in 1.17, borrowed from Realism Invictus)

KaneofEgypt · Mar 25, 2012

For Egypt, the leaders are fantastic, but I think that Hatshepsut really needs to revert back to some sort of more (clothed?) and modest figure. I doubt that she, the queen who wanted to be treated as a king, would have worn something so... revealing.

Xyth · Mar 26, 2012

KaneofEgypt said:
For Egypt, the leaders are fantastic, but I think that Hatshepsut really needs to revert back to some sort of more (clothed?) and modest figure. I doubt that she, the queen who wanted to be treated as a king, would have worn something so... revealing.

Yeah that leaderhead suffers from a bit of 'artistic license'. It's a pity because it's otherwise by far the most appropriate and best quality available. I don't wish to revert to the Firaxis artwork as I've already reused it as Amanirena and it's also the base for Salamasina. The only other decent option is even more revealing. When it comes to leaderhead art I can do retexturing and some other modifications but adding new clothing is beyond my capabilities.

Simon_Jester · Mar 31, 2012

Question:

If someone else has created a mod civilization that is not intended for History Rewritten, can that civilization be inserted plug-and-play style into the History Rewritten mod? If so, how? If not, why not? I don't know enough about how the code works to foresee the problems with doing that.

Feedback: Civilizations

Prince

Gameshow Host

History Rewritten

Prince

Chieftain

History Rewritten

Warlord

Chieftain

King

Prince

History Rewritten

King

King

King

King

Prince

History Rewritten

Chieftain

History Rewritten

Prince

Similar threads