I think it would also be good to discuss respawn names and locations. For example, maybe Mali should be "Nigeria", Kilwa should be "Kenya", and Congo should respawn as Angola. That way African modern respawns can be represented by Africa's major regional powers (ie -- Ethiopia, Kenya, Angola, South Africa, Nigeria, and we can discuss more if more African civs come out) There's no reason to give them their own UHVs or make them playable, but it would be a nice touch to have them respawn in modern times in a semi-historical way.
Merijn new civs and other projects
- Thread starter merijn_v1
- Start date
I think it would also be good to discuss respawn names and locations. For example, maybe Mali should be "Nigeria", Kilwa should be "Kenya", and Congo should respawn as Angola. That way African modern respawns can be represented by Africa's major regional powers (ie -- Ethiopia, Kenya, Angola, South Africa, Nigeria, and we can discuss more if more African civs come out) There's no reason to give them their own UHVs or make them playable, but it would be a nice touch to have them respawn in modern times in a semi-historical way.
Genghis Khaiser
King
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2012
- Messages
- 771
How do you get a high approval rating?
1SDANi
The Fading Memory
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,079
Have high Happiness IIRC.
If only one country respawns in Central Asia it would make more sense to respawn Uzbekistan. It's not that Uzbekistan is a particularly powerful regional power. It's just that it's stronger than all of the other even weaker states around it.
Darnokthemage
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
- Messages
- 138
I like the later date better. After all, it's not like Sweden will choose to be a vassal for 300 years after spawn.
There is a typo in your post, it should be Uzbekibekibekibekistan.
Darnokthemage
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
- Messages
- 138
Thing is that Sweden was not really under Denmarks rule until the early 15th century. Sweden have always been separated from Denmark before that, while Denmark looked westwards to England and france, Sweden looked eastwards to Russia and Finland. They colonized russia, warred against Russia, Crusaded against Russia.
Sorry, I've been reading more about the Swedes from the most authoritative source I know (Wikipedia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedes) and apparently both they and the Danes have roots that stretch back to Roman times. It seems to me that any date that isn't in Roman times other than 1520 -- because that's when modern Sweden began its ascendance to great power status -- is arbitrary to a large extent.
Last edited:
my fault. my english needs work.
Darnokthemage
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2017
- Messages
- 138
Year 540 AD would also fit, but it feels to early for a swedish civ. It's the year when the Fimbulwinter ends and evidence has shown that lots of things changed withing the ruling class of Sweden.
Year 995 would also fit, it's when Olof Skötkonung begins his rule, as the first Christian king from baptising to his death. Would make sense as the beginning of a Christian sweden.
Year 995 would also fit, it's when Olof Skötkonung begins his rule, as the first Christian king from baptising to his death. Would make sense as the beginning of a Christian sweden.
Is the Kalmar Union so important that the Swedish civ must be designed around it?
I say just ignore it as a quirk of history (give it as a dynamic name if Denmark or Sweden vassalizes the other), and spawn Sweden either in the 8th century (if we want a two-headed Viking age) or the 10th century (first known kings of Sweden, end of Viking Age, beginning of Christian middle ages).
I say just ignore it as a quirk of history (give it as a dynamic name if Denmark or Sweden vassalizes the other), and spawn Sweden either in the 8th century (if we want a two-headed Viking age) or the 10th century (first known kings of Sweden, end of Viking Age, beginning of Christian middle ages).
Couldn’t that argument be made for a lot of civs, though? Like that the Turks should spawn in the 1070s instead of the Seljuks in Anatolia (ignoring the Rum collapse), or that the Germans should spawn after the Battle of the Teutoberg Forest (ignoring their disunity and the later Frankish conquest), etc
What argument exactly? Yes, there is an element of arbitrariness for the spawn date of virtually all civs.
Let me try to refine the principle I use to reason about spawn dates:
"Pick the earliest possible date that can be associated with a recognizable presence of the civilization as an independent polity (or collection of polities)."
"Recognizable" means there's an element of continuity. I think most would agree that 1000 AD Sweden is the same civilization as 1600 AD Sweden. Whether 800 AD Sweden also is is perhaps up for debate. I would say that 1st century Germanic people are not a recognizable instance of the German civilization as it exists 9th century onwards. Same idea for the Turks.
"Independent" means the civ must spawn as soon as it exists outside the domination of other civs. Sweden was independent for several centuries prior to 1397, and apparently was semi-independent in the Kalmar Union period.
Anyway, that's just me trying to formalize my thoughts. The principal criteria are, of course, making the game broadly historical and always fun.
Let me try to refine the principle I use to reason about spawn dates:
"Pick the earliest possible date that can be associated with a recognizable presence of the civilization as an independent polity (or collection of polities)."
"Recognizable" means there's an element of continuity. I think most would agree that 1000 AD Sweden is the same civilization as 1600 AD Sweden. Whether 800 AD Sweden also is is perhaps up for debate. I would say that 1st century Germanic people are not a recognizable instance of the German civilization as it exists 9th century onwards. Same idea for the Turks.
"Independent" means the civ must spawn as soon as it exists outside the domination of other civs. Sweden was independent for several centuries prior to 1397, and apparently was semi-independent in the Kalmar Union period.
Anyway, that's just me trying to formalize my thoughts. The principal criteria are, of course, making the game broadly historical and always fun.
I would also think about practical considerations. For example, a 1523 start gives a lot less ramp up time for the 17th century conquests than a 13th century start. Sometimes you want a UHV to be tight and sometimes it should instead be more open. The latter is usually the default for European civs.
1SDANi
The Fading Memory
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2014
- Messages
- 3,079
Merged Steb's Israel into DOC in addition to the previously merged Australia and South Africa. I also merged in the latest revision of DOC. If anyone would like a custom set of civs or just for more civs in this package, I'd be happy to help, I've gotten very good at merging civs into DOC in the last three days.
https://github.com/earthcrafterman/Dawn-of-Civilization/tree/CivComp
EDIT: Just so you know, the reason I'm posting my merge in the threads of the mods it's based on and not making a thread of my own is that I'd rather increase visibility for the included mods, instead of making a thread of my own. If any problems emerge or if others deem it best for this to be a separate thread I'd be happy to do so.
https://github.com/earthcrafterman/Dawn-of-Civilization/tree/CivComp
EDIT: Just so you know, the reason I'm posting my merge in the threads of the mods it's based on and not making a thread of my own is that I'd rather increase visibility for the included mods, instead of making a thread of my own. If any problems emerge or if others deem it best for this to be a separate thread I'd be happy to do so.
ales_
Heir
It's funny you say it because, once again, this was the original spawn date for Germany in the very first version of RFC before it was moved for the same reasons as France, but in this case I agree with you.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
What does this refer to?
Similar threads
