Feedback: Civilizations

[jammci]

Shouldn't the Scots be in this, we gave the world quite a lot in the 1700-1850's period and Robert the Bruce was a Scottish leader

 

[Xyth]

Shouldn't the Scots be in this, we gave the world quite a lot in the 1700-1850's period and Robert the Bruce was a Scottish leader

The Scots are represented by the Celts and I've no plans to split them up into smaller civilizations. Europe is already very well represented in HR.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Also, the Scots spent the period 1700-1850 under British rule; during its period of political independence Scotland had relatively little impact outside its own home island.

 

[BBQ man]

What about a PAC NW Native Am civ? Could a composite proto-tribe or a single historical tribe? What about the Scythians? Do they fall into the Turkic camp, or the Kushan?

 

[Xyth]

What about a PAC NW Native Am civ? Could a composite proto-tribe or a single historical tribe?

The only other North American civilization I have plans to add is the Mississippi. They had large permanent settlements and centralized government so I think they're a much more suitable inclusion.

What about the Scythians? Do they fall into the Turkic camp, or the Kushan?

The Scythians were an Iranian people so the Persians would be the closest fit. Once, again though, they were a people with few permanent settlements and little political unity. They disappear long before the Medieval era too. All that combined with a lack of usable art pretty much rules them out.

 

[lindsay40k]

I think this is the appropriate thread to mention this. I can see the appeal in making Scipio more of a military powerhouse than Hannibal, given how things went at Zama, but I'm not sure this holds up.

Most analysis I've read states that Scipio's advantage was in happening to have a better army under his command at that point in time, not being a better general per se; Scipio being more of a hardcase than Hannibal suggests that had they changed places, Scipio could have conducted the invasion of Italy better, and won Zama. This is not a widely-held view amongst the sources I've read.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that Scipio was also a priest and commonly regarded as being in direct communion with the gods. All things considered, I think there's a strong argument to switch a trait out for Spiritual.

 

[Xyth]

I think this is the appropriate thread to mention this. I can see the appeal in making Scipio more of a military powerhouse than Hannibal, given how things went at Zama, but I'm not sure this holds up.

Most analysis I've read states that Scipio's advantage was in happening to have a better army under his command at that point in time, not being a better general per se; Scipio being more of a hardcase than Hannibal suggests that had they changed places, Scipio could have conducted the invasion of Italy better, and won Zama. This is not a widely-held view amongst the sources I've read.

Furthermore, it's my understanding that Scipio was also a priest and commonly regarded as being in direct communion with the gods. All things considered, I think there's a strong argument to switch a trait out for Spiritual.

Quite often the traits I give to a leader are just as much about what their civilization was like in their era as it is about their personal qualities. So it could be construed that both Hannibal and Scipio have the Tactical trait to reflect their abilities as generals, while their second traits reflect the resources they have to draw on - the military and logistical might of Rome, vs the merchant and colonial-powered economy of Carthage.

I wouldn't give Spiritual to Scipio as, while he was a priest, neither he nor the Rome of his era weren't particularly renown for being spiritual - at least compared to the other Spiritual leaders and civilizations. Also, the Spiritual/Tactical combination is currently used by Richard Lionheart, who I think is considerably more suited to it.

 

[lindsay40k]

Agreed, Richard is well suited to that combo, hadn't noticed the niche was already occupied!

 

[Eucalyptus]

I don't know whether this has ever been mentioned, but the Khmer city list includes various `cities' that were never cities.

Some of these names are actually temples within the city of Angkor. This is well-known for Angkor Wat. Other temples include Pre Rup and Banteay Kdei. Angkor Thom is contentious --- as "Great Angkor" it can be regarded as Angkor itself. Other candidates for omission include the temple of Preah Vihear (not in Angkor). I'm not sure about the rest.

So, if I were rewriting the city list, I would use Angkor as the first city (not historically the oldest), and immediately omit Angkor Wat, Angkor Thom, Pre Rup, Banteay Kdei and Preah Vihear.

Can anyone say more about the existing list?

 

[Xyth]

I don't know whether this has ever been mentioned, but the Khmer city list includes various `cities' that were never cities.

Some of these names are actually temples within the city of Angkor. This is well-known for Angkor Wat. Other temples include Pre Rup and Banteay Kdei. Angkor Thom is contentious --- as "Great Angkor" it can be regarded as Angkor itself. Other candidates for omission include the temple of Preah Vihear (not in Angkor). I'm not sure about the rest.

So, if I were rewriting the city list, I would use Angkor as the first city (not historically the oldest), and immediately omit Angkor Wat, Angkor Thom, Pre Rup, Banteay Kdei and Preah Vihear.

Can anyone say more about the existing list?

Yeah the Khmer citylist needs a serious overhaul, as do many still. I haven't worked on citylists for some time but I'd like to again for 1.19.

 

[kiwitt]

I am now developing a WWII scenario, so it would be great to have some more WWII leaders.

In the case of Germany, it would be good to have Hitler, Charlemagne I can understand being there as the First Holy Roman Emperor.

 

[kiwitt]

Would you be able to add some additional leaders via modules in XML, but not assign to any of them the basic civilizations for random play. This will allow me to make a more accurate scenario, which can then call on these leaders via the scenario parameters.

 

[Xyth]

Would you be able to add some additional leaders via modules in XML, but not assign to any of them the basic civilizations for random play. This will allow me to make a more accurate scenario, which can then call on these leaders via the scenario parameters.

That's fine. Leader art doesn't consume memory when not in use so it won't be detrimental to the main game. Unit and building art does though.

 

[kiwitt]

I'll supply a list of leaders I require soon.

 

[Absolution]

How about Armenians or Hurrians?
Shaushtatar could be a good Hurrian leader.
Tigranes II, Tiridates III, and Leo I can be good Armenian leaders.
I thik this area isn't covered by any other civilization yet, except for Assyria..

And if you are going with that "Pan-Turkic" idea, how about Uzun Hassan as a Turkic leader?

China needs alot of new leaders as well.
The Han dynasty must be represented. Wu of Han can be a good leader to add.
I think the Ming dynasty should be represented too. Maybe Hongwu or Yongle. I just don't know enough about them.
And maybe even Kangxi for Qing China?

And - What about the Burmese civilization?
There have been so many great Burmese leaders: Anawrahta, Kyanzittha, Cansu II, Razadarit, Minyekyawswa, Tabinshwehti, Bayinnaung, Alaungpaya, Hsinbyushin. Just pick two or three.
Threre are enough cities or UU and UB. Thre must be.
Pagan Empire, Pegu, Ava, Taungoo, Konbaung - they were all Burmese.

 

[Xyth]

How about Armenians or Hurrians?
Shaushtatar could be a good Hurrian leader.
Tigranes II, Tiridates III, and Leo I can be good Armenian leaders.
I thik this area isn't covered by any other civilization yet, except for Assyria..

Armenia is definitely a possibility. There's a reasonable amount of art and material available and, despite its small size and impact, its very long and relatively unbroken history makes it an interesting choice. My main hesitation is that I want to fill some regional gaps elsewhere before considering another civ in West Asia.

And if you are going with that "Pan-Turkic" idea, how about Uzun Hassan as a Turkic leader?

China needs alot of new leaders as well.
The Han dynasty must be represented. Wu of Han can be a good leader to add.
I think the Ming dynasty should be represented too. Maybe Hongwu or Yongle. I just don't know enough about them.
And maybe even Kangxi for Qing China?

More leaders for existing civs means less room for new civs. As the Turks and the Chinese already have 4 leaders each I'd prefer to wait until I have a better idea of how many more civs are feasible.

And - What about the Burmese civilization?
There have been so many great Burmese leaders: Anawrahta, Kyanzittha, Cansu II, Razadarit, Minyekyawswa, Tabinshwehti, Bayinnaung, Alaungpaya, Hsinbyushin. Just pick two or three.
Threre are enough cities or UU and UB. Thre must be.
Pagan Empire, Pegu, Ava, Taungoo, Konbaung - they were all Burmese.

I'd like to add Burma. Main issue is a lack of art.

 

[tchristensen]

I would like to suggest moving Hannibal out of the Phoenicians and either into another North Africa group, or perhaps creating his own civilization as either the Carthaginians or Lybians. Although one could argue that the Phoenicians controlled Carthage around 800 BC, Hannibal lived nearly 600 years later in a much different social-political environment.

UU = War Elephant?

 

[Xyth]

I would like to suggest moving Hannibal out of the Phoenicians and either into another North Africa group, or perhaps creating his own civilization as either the Carthaginians or Lybians. Although one could argue that the Phoenicians controlled Carthage around 800 BC, Hannibal lived nearly 600 years later in a much different social-political environment.

UU = War Elephant?

It would be disingenuous to separate Carthage from Phoenicia, they're the same civilization with continuity of ethnicity, culture, religion, language, and identity. Dynamic City Naming is coming in 1.19 though and I think this will go a long way towards bringing better definition for leaders like Hannibal. Dynamic City Naming means each leader can have a different capital and different priorities for cities to found. So while Hiram will found the Levantine cities first, Hannibal will found Carthage as his capital and his citylist will prioritize the African and West Mediterranean settlements.

I understand the desire for a War Elephant unit but I feel its better to have a UU that is iconic for all of Punic history rather than one associated with just one famous general/statesman. A 2nd UU for every civ is something I might consider in the future though, in which case Hannibal's elephants would be perfect.

 

[tchristensen]

Have you ever considered giving mesoamerican cultures, and perhaps other equatorial civilizations, a unique technology that allows them to work jungles more efficiently. The Maya and Aztec lived in dense equatorial jungles and as the mod stands they would be choked to death until the invention of iron to clear the trees?

I know you can give unique technologies to civilizations and wonder if you ever thought of adding them for such an instance? Perhaps allows cutting of jungle from the start of the game. I could also see them being able to build chinampas in jungle tiles with an added food bonus?

 

[tchristensen]

What are your thoughts of replacing the standard monument for a stelae for the Mayans?

Stelae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_stelae