New and Changed Civilizations in 1.18

[Leoreth]

Kushan was living in Gansu province,China,about 400 BC or earlier.And 150BC, Huns defeated them,then they migrated to Transoxiana,and conquered Bactria,Hindu Kush area untill Hephthalite,Turky and some other nomads destroyed it.
Maybe we can make Kushans born in Gansu,set a AIwar to make them conquer Transoxiana and Bactria(just like the Phoenicians）,and make barbarians destroy their cities in Gansu and Xinjiang.

What would be the point

 

[Pawlak]

P.S.I know it's not reasonable from gameplay point of view, but why State Party/Totalitarism have no access to whipping? It's even more bizzare given that Despotism never obsoletes (unlike, say, Republic), and that modernish autoritarian states like Colombia start with it, implying that Despotism is authoritarian, non-doctrinal dictatorship, while Single Party is totalitarian... but totalitarian regimes are more prone to, uh, whipping. Given that Totalitarism is currently rather meh (i believe i have mentioned in another thread that no civ really has a valid reason to run it), maybe give it whipping as well?

Adding whipping to State Party feels like missing the mark as far as what this civic actually means, but also State Party is very good on it's own. Despotism not going obsolete makes great sense to me, precisely cos it pops out in every period of human history. Republic going obsolete is not only immersive, as it means ancient/medieval type of government which really would not work as 'representative' popular gov form in post-french revolution world (imagine trying to sell Venetian type of republic as democratic regieme in 20th century), as well as it makes weird insane large pop late game tall builds unviable which in my opinion makes game more interesting - optimal combination of civics being different in different time periods forces you to make choices as opposed to f.e. civ5 policies with you just get and keep - much more boring gameplay.

However Totalitarianism giving late game whipping option is really interesting. I agree it's super meh civic, I never really use it, it kind of sort of make sense for a late game conquest, but not really. If you gain whipping it may be viable for a modern underdog gameplay, a kind of Northern Korea where you are super behind, but try to make some crazy push sacrificing a lot of pops for that. I believe it should be much more costly in stability compared to ancient times whipping, but that's minor thing, overall I believe it is great way to buff admittedly pretty weak late game civic.

 

[1SDANi]

Adding whipping to State Party feels like missing the mark as far as what this civic actually means, but also State Party is very good on it's own. Despotism not going obsolete makes great sense to me, precisely cos it pops out in every period of human history. Republic going obsolete is not only immersive, as it means ancient/medieval type of government which really would not work as 'representative' popular gov form in post-french revolution world (imagine trying to sell Venetian type of republic as democratic regieme in 20th century), as well as it makes weird insane large pop late game tall builds unviable which in my opinion makes game more interesting - optimal combination of civics being different in different time periods forces you to make choices as opposed to f.e. civ5 policies with you just get and keep - much more boring gameplay.

However Totalitarianism giving late game whipping option is really interesting. I agree it's super meh civic, I never really use it, it kind of sort of make sense for a late game conquest, but not really. If you gain whipping it may be viable for a modern underdog gameplay, a kind of Northern Korea where you are super behind, but try to make some crazy push sacrificing a lot of pops for that. I believe it should be much more costly in stability compared to ancient times whipping, but that's minor thing, overall I believe it is great way to buff admittedly pretty weak late game civic.

I'd say Republic as its effect currently exists still works for representing modern direct democracies like the Paris Commune and other such autonomous anarchic communities, the main issue is that at the scale of the current and even the big map, such communities would exist on a single tile at most.

 

[TsimTsigal]

I'd say Republic as its effect currently exists still works for representing modern direct democracies like the Paris Commune and other such autonomous anarchic communities, the main issue is that at the scale of the current and even the big map, such communities would exist on a single tile at most.

The problem is that such states never managed to exist for more than a few years. Sorta anarchic Iceland is closer to Elective civic (and isn't even a thing in DoC).

To move discussion away from civics and Russia: i wonder if Leoreth can share his plans on UHVs of new civs? I hadn't checked new map branch yet, but i assume they don't have any yet. As a side note - there was a huge discussion regarding Byzantine UP, but from what i can tell, it is still ol' bad Bribery?

Also, given new American UP, Totalitarism might be surprisingly good for "conquer 'em all" approach to UHV3.

 

[1SDANi]

The problem is that such states never managed to exist for more than a few years. Sorta anarchic Iceland is closer to Elective civic (and isn't even a thing in DoC).

To move discussion away from civics and Russia: i wonder if Leoreth can share his plans on UHVs of new civs? I hadn't checked new map branch yet, but i assume they don't have any yet. As a side note - there was a huge discussion regarding Byzantine UP, but from what i can tell, it is still ol' bad Bribery?

Also, given new American UP, Totalitarism might be surprisingly good for "conquer 'em all" approach to UHV3.

Yeah, that's easily the second biggest problem. If the Paris Commune was bigger it could be a dynamic name for France running Republic, but with how tiny it was it can't even have that.

That said, Cheran has been doing pretty well for the last decade, even if in no small part thanks to being an autonomous community which Mexico claims ownership of.

 

[KdNseer]

What would be the point

More historical and immersed I think.

 

[TsimTsigal]

Yeah, that's easily the second biggest problem. If the Paris Commune was bigger it could be a dynamic name for France running Republic, but with how tiny it was it can't even have that.

That said, Cheran has been doing pretty well for the last decade, even if in no small part thanks to being an autonomous community which Mexico claims ownership of.

Tbh i have no idea why do you think that Republic, being explicitly "elitist" civic (buffing specialists at cost of lower productivity of pretty much every land improvement), represents anarchic communes. I'm not sure the exact reasoning behind it, but so far it seems that lower food production is direct reference to late Roman Republic, with Patricians being in charge of everything and increasingly ineffective independent farming (because said Patricians were buying off most of lands for their Latifundiums + helping Greece with chronical food problems to build a specialist eco.

Elective represents loose control over country and confederations much better, to the point it makes neglected tiles more valuable.

Also, as the last point before we finish the offtopic discussion - Cheran isn't a country, it isn't even a particulary big commune, and usually need for hierarchies arises when population grows above the threshold.

 

[trexeric]

Are Great People lists for the new civs something where suggestions are needed/welcome? I started working on splitting the Vikings Great People list into Vikings and Sweden, but I won't finalize it or anything if it's already being taken care of.

 

[stormogulen]

Are Great People lists for the new civs something where suggestions are needed/welcome? I started working on splitting the Vikings Great People list into Vikings and Sweden, but I won't finalize it or anything if it's already being taken care of.

I wonder that too. I played around a bit with one for Sweden a while back. Here's how it looks:

Spoiler Sweden Great People :

{
    iGreatProphet : [
        "fBirgitta Birgersdotter", # 14th
        iRenaissance,
        "Olaus Petri", # 16th
        "Johannes Campanius", # 17th
        "Emanuel Swedenborg", # 18th
        iIndustrial,
        u"Lars Levi Læstadius", # 19th
        "Carl Olof Rosenius", # 19th
        iGlobal,
        u"Nathan Söderblom", # 20th
        "Lewi Pethrus", # 20th
    ],
    iGreatArtist : [
        u"Nils Håkansson", # 15th
        u"Albert Målare", # 15th
        iRenaissance,
        "Georg Stiernhielm", # 17th
        "Carl Michael Bellman", # 18th
        iIndustrial,
        "Johan Ludvig Runeberg", # 19th (finnish)
        "fJenny Lind", # 19th
        "August Strindberg", # 19th
        "Anders Zorn", # 19th
        iGlobal,
        u"fSelma Lagerlöf", # 20th
        "Jean Sibelius", # 20th (finnish)
        "fAstrid Lindgren", # 20th
        "Ingmar Bergman", # 20th
        "Max Martin", # 20th
    ],
    iGreatScientist : [
        iRenaissance,
        "Mikael Agricola", # 16th (finnish)
        "Olof Rudbeck", # 17th
        "Anders Celsius", # 18th
        u"Carl von Linné", # 18th
        "fEva Ekeblad", # 18th
        "Carl Wilhelm Scheele", # 18th
        iIndustrial,
        u"Jöns Jacob Berzelius", # 19th
        u"Anders Ångström", # 19th
        "Janne Rydberg", # 19th
        "Svante Arrhenius", # 19th
        iGlobal,
        "Lars Ahlfors", # 20th (finnish)
        u"Hannes Alfvén", # 20th
    ],
    iGreatMerchant : [
        "Bo Jonsson", # 14th
        iRenaissance,
        "Louis De Geer", # 17th
        "fChristina Piper", # 18th
        "Niclas Sahlgren", # 18th
        "Rutger Macklean", # 18th
        iIndustrial,
        "Lars Magnus Ericsson", # 19th
        "Sven Hedin", # 19th
        iGlobal,
        "Ivar Kreuger", # 20th
        "Marcus Wallenberg Jr.", # 20th
        "Ingvar Kamprad", # 20th
    ],
    iGreatEngineer : [
        "Erik Dahlbergh", # 17th
        "Nicodemus Tessin", # 17th
        "Christopher Polhem", # 18th
        iIndustrial,
        "Per Georg Scheutz", # 19th
        "Johan Ericsson", # 19th
        "Alfred Nobel", # 19th
        "Gustaf de Laval", # 19th
        u"Jonas Wenström", # 19th
        "Carl Edvard Johansson", # 19th
        iGlobal,
        u"Gustaf Dalén", # 20th
        "Sven Gustaf Wingqvist", # 20th
        "Carl Munters", # 20th
        "Nils Bohlin", # 20th
        "Linus Torvalds", # 20th (finnish)
    ],
    iGreatStatesman : [
        "Birger Jarl", # 13th
        iRenaissance,
        "Gustav Vasa", # 16th
        "Axel Oxenstierna", # 17th
        "fKristina", # 17th
        "Arvid Horn", # 18th
        "Peter Estenberg", # 18th
        "Anders Chydenius", # 18th (finnish)
        iIndustrial,
        "Gustaf Mauritz Armfelt", # 18th (finnish)
        "Johan August Gripenstedt", # 19th
        "August Palm", # 19th
        iGlobal,
        "Ernst Wigforss", # 20th
        "Folke Bernadotte", # 20th
        "fAlva Myrdal", # 20th
        u"Dag Hammarskjöld", # 20th
        "Olof Palme", # 20th
    ],
    iGreatGeneral : [
        "Tyrgils Knutsson", # 13th
        "Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson", # 15th
        iRenaissance,
        "Gustav Vasa", # 16th
        "Gustaf Horn", # 17th (finnish)
        u"Johan Banér", # 17th
        "Lennart Torstensson", # 17th
        "Carl Gustaf Wrangel", # 17th
        u"Carl Gustav Rehnskiöld", # 17th
        "fIngela Gathenhielm", # 18th
        "Carl Olof Cronstedt", # 18th
        iGlobal,
        "Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim", # 20th (finnish)
        "Adolf Ehrnrooth", # 20th (finnish)
    ],
    iGreatSpy : [
        "fAnna Maria Clodt", # 17th
        "fCharlotte Eckerman", # 18th
        u"fEva Löwen", # 18th
        iGlobal,
        "Carlos Adlercreutz", # 20th
        u"Stig Wennerström", # 20th
        "Stig Bergling", # 20th
    ],
}

 

[Leoreth]

Tbh i have no idea why do you think that Republic, being explicitly "elitist" civic (buffing specialists at cost of lower productivity of pretty much every land improvement), represents anarchic communes. I'm not sure the exact reasoning behind it, but so far it seems that lower food production is direct reference to late Roman Republic, with Patricians being in charge of everything and increasingly ineffective independent farming (because said Patricians were buying off most of lands for their Latifundiums + helping Greece with chronical food problems to build a specialist eco.

Not disagreeing with regards to anarchist polities, but I think you are applying a too narrow definition of republic if you think it is explicitly elitist. It is also meant to cover all kinds of democratic or oligarchic Greek poleis and these are not necessarily elitist (except in the sense that participation was limited to free citizen males, but that does not seem to be what you are talking about).

Again I would like to ask for caution when it comes to using arbtitrary definitions too literally. Just because the term republic comes from a Roman context does not mean that Rome is the archetype for this civic.

Are Great People lists for the new civs something where suggestions are needed/welcome? I started working on splitting the Vikings Great People list into Vikings and Sweden, but I won't finalize it or anything if it's already being taken care of.

It is definitely welcome, however it is low in my priority list to actually incorporate into the mod and therefore I cannot pay attention to it.

Instead I would suggest that you start a thread, preferably with an associated google doc or similar where multiple people can collaborate so that I can use the result as easy reference when I have the time to incorporate it.

Also if you compile a list like this use the number of people in existing lists as a rough guideline for how many people to include.

 

[Steb]

Are Great People lists for the new civs something where suggestions are needed/welcome? I started working on splitting the Vikings Great People list into Vikings and Sweden, but I won't finalize it or anything if it's already being taken care of.

I wonder that too. I played around a bit with one for Sweden a while back. Here's how it looks:

It is definitely welcome, however it is low in my priority list to actually incorporate into the mod and therefore I cannot pay attention to it.

Instead I would suggest that you start a thread, preferably with an associated google doc or similar where multiple people can collaborate so that I can use the result as easy reference when I have the time to incorporate it.

Also if you compile a list like this use the number of people in existing lists as a rough guideline for how many people to include.

This seems like the right time to mention that I made such a spreadsheet a few days ago, but hadn't shared it yet. It includes all new civs plus some of the existing civs that I expect to be affected (e.g. Vikings). And also the Dravidians, since we didn't have a Tamil list, but it seems worth splitting it from India.

I'll make a thread too sometime soon to draw attention to it, but in the meantime feel free to add names to the spreadsheet. I haven't really added anything yet.

@Leoreth, a question: worth making a separate category for Great Explorers, or is that too uncertain / too far down the line to be useful?

 

[Dracosolon]

This Great People stuff reminded me to ask: what area/time period will the Celts cover? They spawn in Gaul in 600 BC it seems, but do they stand for other Celtic cultures as well?

 

[Leoreth]

@Leoreth, a question: worth making a separate category for Great Explorers, or is that too uncertain / too far down the line to be useful?

It's probably going to be a while before we can include something like that, definitely after the 1.18 release. If you want to track a separate category for great explorers, you should at least put the people that also into other categories if they fit (like currently many explorer candidates are merchants). They shouldn't be completely left out.

This Great People stuff reminded me to ask: what area/time period will the Celts cover? They spawn in Gaul in 600 BC it seems, but do they stand for other Celtic cultures as well?

Primarily the Gauls, and also insular Celts as well.

 

[DC123456789]

I'd also be curious to know what the intended scope of the Kushan civ is?

 

[trexeric]

This seems like the right time to mention that I made such a spreadsheet a few days ago, but hadn't shared it yet. It includes all new civs plus some of the existing civs that I expect to be affected (e.g. Vikings). And also the Dravidians, since we didn't have a Tamil list, but it seems worth splitting it from India.

Haha great, I was getting stressed about the idea of making one myself.

EDIT: I'll work on adding my Sweden/Vikings list to this, plus some changes inspired by @stormogulen's list.

 

[TsimTsigal]

(except in the sense that participation was limited to free citizen males, but that does not seem to be what you are talking about).

This is exactly what i meant. Democracy = Universal Suffrage, Republic = Suffrage only for a well-defined group (elite in a broad sense), be it the rich (Carthage), free male citizens (Athens), the noble + 1/100 citizens (Rome) and so on.

Google doc for GPs sounds really cool. I also chuckled a bit when i learned that you made Nietzsche a Great Prophet - given than Prussia usually stays Christian, it's... amusing, to say the least.

 

[Leoreth]

I'd also be curious to know what the intended scope of the Kushan civ is?

Kushan Empire plus successor states. Not sure what else you are wondering about.

 

[Matara]

So what's the idea of splitting the indonesians into two, the Malay and Sumatra? I don't know if they were distinct in history, but intuitionally they show much of homogeneity in their style of history and gameplay. i.e. The continuity between Srivijaya and Majapahit. So I wonder if another indonesian civilization is repeating in some way.

 

[DC123456789]

Kushan Empire plus successor states. Not sure what else you are wondering about.

I'm wondering about what you consider to be successor states, e.g. Hepthalites/Hunas? Turk Shahis?

 

[1SDANi]

Tbh i have no idea why do you think that Republic, being explicitly "elitist" civic (buffing specialists at cost of lower productivity of pretty much every land improvement), represents anarchic communes. I'm not sure the exact reasoning behind it, but so far it seems that lower food production is direct reference to late Roman Republic, with Patricians being in charge of everything and increasingly ineffective independent farming (because said Patricians were buying off most of lands for their Latifundiums + helping Greece with chronical food problems to build a specialist eco.

Elective represents loose control over country and confederations much better, to the point it makes neglected tiles more valuable.

Also, as the last point before we finish the offtopic discussion - Cheran isn't a country, it isn't even a particulary big commune, and usually need for hierarchies arises when population grows above the threshold.

What Leoreth said. I interpret the distinction between Republic and Democracy as being one of scale. Republic represents forms of democracy that are more or less impractical at larger scales. I can see Elective representing anarchism if Elective broadly represents elective coalitions, but until you suggested that it does I assumed it was an elective counterpart to Depotism and Monarchy. I can also see Democracy representing anarchism assuming it was good at being applied at scale, but historically we've only really seen small scale implementations.

You are correct in regards to Cheran. It is an autonomous community that, on the global stage, is recognized as being part of Mexico and does indeed get a lot of benefit from being de jure part of Mexico, as well as the funding Mexico provides it. It's not an ideal example of a more or less independent anarchist community, but it's the best example of one lasting past a few years that I am aware of.

This is exactly what i meant. Democracy = Universal Suffrage, Republic = Suffrage only for a well-defined group (elite in a broad sense), be it the rich (Carthage), free male citizens (Athens), the noble + 1/100 citizens (Rome) and so on.

Google doc for GPs sounds really cool. I also chuckled a bit when i learned that you made Nietzsche a Great Prophet - given than Prussia usually stays Christian, it's... amusing, to say the least.

By that definition, the USA was running Republic until 1965.