New Warlords civs

[HÄI]

Is there any consesnus yet on which new Civs will be added to RFC? I'd just like to present my opinion here:

Carthage: will surely offer an enjoyable game, but Rome will need even more boost if Carthage is added. Also, it will be silly to see Carthage rule Africa til the end of the game, but I guess changing it's name to Algeria later on isn't possible. I support adding it anyway.

Celts: unnecessary. Barbarians, and will only mess things up for Rome and France.

Korea: also unnecessary. The Korean peninsula is way too small for a new Civ, and will confuse things for Japan and China in a really unrealistic way.

Ottomas: definitely needs to be added IMO. At the moment it is always Greece - or rarely Persia - who ends up dominating Turkey til the end of the game. The Ottomans should balance things up. They probably wouldn't usually end up being such a huge nation that they historically were, but if they'll receive lots of troops they'll cause realistic trouble for Persia and Greece, even Egypt and Arabia.

Scandinavia/Vikings: would make the situation in Scandinavia to make at least a little sense. At the moment such nations as Greece, Persia and Rome rush to Scandinavia with Open Borders, or of they won't get Open borders, Germany and England end up fighting for Scandinavia. A Viking state appearing around the same time as England will make things more interesting. And it'll be quite realistic too, they had an important role in Russian and British history. Will also offer an interesting game, perhaps as sort of "the European Mongols", an aggressive nation.

Zululand: unnecessary. Worthless. Won't offer a fun game at all.

I also support adding Babylonia, which I understand is already being done? And while we're at it, I still think the Aztecs and Incas are useless nations and don't offer an interesting game.

 

[Rhye]

you guess right - there will be only Ottomans, Vikings, Carthage and possibly Babylon as playable new civs. The others will be minor.

 

[Elhoim]

Will these civs and the vassal states (among other Warlords improvements) be only included when the RFC Warlords version is out (in other thread you said it will come out when the final patched version of Warlords was out, which can be 6 months from here...).

 

[HÄI]

I guess have to do two separate installs for Rhye's and Warlords.

 

[Rhye]

Vanilla RFC must be close to final before starting working on RFCW.
You see, this time there won't be "basic" and "expanded". I can't predict if it's 2 or 6 months. I will have to deal with real life stuff as well.

 

[darkedone02]

put all the warlords unit in, no matter how bad or good they are, but them in so that if you don't like them at all, go to war with them.

 

[Lachlan]

But should be not impossible to adapt RFC in august for Warlords ?

Explanation, just add the new civs and wait for feedback

Because if we have 6 new slots of civs, we just add 6 civs ?

Because the only civ i want to see modified is celts for babylonians

Minor civ could be modified barbarian

What do you think ?

If not i will stop to play RFC because i will have Warlords ...

 

[Arkaeyn]

you guess right - there will be only Ottomans, Vikings, Carthage and possibly Babylon as playable new civs. The others will be minor.

Ethiopia!!

 

[SilverKnight]

Carthage: will surely offer an enjoyable game, but Rome will need even more boost if Carthage is added. Also, it will be silly to see Carthage rule Africa til the end of the game, but I guess changing it's name to Algeria later on isn't possible. I support adding it anyway.

But Carthage hardly did anything except block trade for Rome. Then Rome pwnt them back to teh (sic) Stone Age. Carthage was a great trading port, but when Rome re-occupied the area, it was still a great seaport under them.

Scandinavia/Vikings: would make the situation in Scandinavia to make at least a little sense. At the moment such nations as Greece, Persia and Rome rush to Scandinavia with Open Borders, or of they won't get Open borders, Germany and England end up fighting for Scandinavia. A Viking state appearing around the same time as England will make things more interesting. And it'll be quite realistic too, they had an important role in Russian and British history. Will also offer an interesting game, perhaps as sort of "the European Mongols", an aggressive nation.

England should be just starting to develop as IRL, so maybe a bit after. I agree, the Vikings, the Ottomans and Babylon will offer the most changes and realism.

If not i will stop to play RFC because i will have Warlords ...

Agreed. When Warlords comes out, those of us who have it will take a few weeks vacation, to say the least.

As for minor civs to be included, I vote the Celts, Carthage, Korea, Zulu, Ethiopia, some Native American tribe (in the plains, not by the lakes like Iroquois), and Maya. Some of these can be represented simply by barbarian tribes/cities, it doesn't matter to me. Whatever makes the most sense for balance.

SilverKnight

 

[Prestidigitator]

OMG! Warlords is due tomorrow!

I guess Babylon will be ready maybe a week or so after the release of Warlords, I just have to compile the files. You see, I won't be able to introduce the XML files before I can modify the Warlords version of the XML.

Please do not hesitate to drop in the 'Mesopotamia' thread and offer any ideas, all suggestions there are welcome , right now I have collected some ideas from those who posted, I hope to get more ideas regarding some other stuff there aswell.

 

[SilverKnight]

Haha, I was wondering when you would show up. Let's show some support for Babylon! With them and the Ottomans, the Middle East will finally be (rightfully) crowded. Just a few more resources would help them sustain large enough armies to use against each other and the (hopefully) invading European civs.

SilverKnight

 

[Kanaric]

You could make the celts irish or scottish if their is enough room their.

 

[Prestidigitator]

So when will the mod be compatible with Warlords?
When do I need to have Babylon ready for the mod?

 

[MrThing]

I think the Ottomans will need to begin with a lot of units (strong ones) and dislike of their immediate neighbours if they are going to have any CHANCE of becoming much the real Ottoman Empire.

They will also have to suffer horrible inflation after 1650 or so if they are to expand and then stagnate like the actual Ottomans.

 

[Eddiit]

I think the Ottomans will need to begin with a lot of units (strong ones) and dislike of their immediate neighbours if they are going to have any CHANCE of becoming much the real Ottoman Empire.

They will also have to suffer horrible inflation after 1650 or so if they are to expand and then stagnate like the actual Ottomans.

Remember this isnt a historical simulation. The ottomans dont necessarily need to be as powerful as the real ones and they dont need to fade in the 1650's. They should be made powerful enough to make waves but still be balanced and exist as long as they can maintain their empire.

 

[Morholt]

Carthage and Rome could begin in locked war? Also the celts could start in france like 1000 BC (they predate the romans) and then have the French start "on top" of them. So if they aren't destroyed by the romans, they'll have to fight to cling on to what little territory they still have after the arrival of the Franks: small, isolated communities in Brittany, Navarre, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. Just like in history. In fact, they really should be in.
Koreas greatest achievment is repelling two japanese invasions and serving as a battleground, but barbs can do that. Not needed.
Zululand could work with massively cost-reduced impis (in the Zulu War it was like 100 Zulus for every English). It'd be a desperate and bloody fight to keep independence - unless they go with the ahistorical path and become vassals of an European power.
Vikings should be in, and start at 793 with a longship (galley) and two berserks in addition to other starting units. Lindisfarne shall burn!
Ottomans should be in, and start as muslim.

..That leaves a slot for another civ! May I suggest the Khmer (Start date around 700 AD), or possibly Sumer (Start date 3000 BC)?

 

[Prestidigitator]

..That leaves a slot for another civ! May I suggest the Khmer (Start date around 700 AD), or possibly Sumer (Start date 3000 BC)?

Instead of Sumeria, there will be Babylon, starting at 3'000 BC. If you want you can check out my thread on this project .

 

[McA123]

I am of the opinion that it would be a good idea to make the Incans/Aztecs either minor nations or maybe represent them with barbarians, since the only real impact they had in history was getting crushed by a handful of conquistadors, when there are other civs which deserve representation much more (I would be all for putting the Portugese and Dutch in there, they were major colonial powers too). Of course, it would take a fair bit of work to do that since the leaderhead, UU, UP, and UB and god knows what else would all have to be done, and I have NO clue how to do any of that. I know that this probably (almost definitely) won't happen, it's still just my opinion on the matter. And as for the new Civs in Warlords, I don't think the Koreans or Zulu should be put in, and I think the Celts might be a good idea for a minor Civ.

 

[jbfballrb]

carthage and rome neednt be in a locked war, just use the AI Wars and have them very disposed to fighting. would the ottomans start in central asia and conquer westwards, like the persians do, or would they pop up in anatolia?

 

[MrThing]

Remember this isnt a historical simulation. The ottomans dont necessarily need to be as powerful as the real ones and they dont need to fade in the 1650's. They should be made powerful enough to make waves but still be balanced and exist as long as they can maintain their empire.

I only said there should be a CHANCE, that is to say, if their neighbours happen to be a little weak and things go well for them.

Regarding decline, I think it would be cool if decesions had to be made to affect how dynamic you turn out to be, but there is a price to pay if you chose to remain dynamic.