Potential Civ Additions

[Force44]

On youtube I stumbled upon a short history of the country Georgia and noticed the timespan of the kingdom of Georgia (1008 AD - 1490 AD) fitted snugly within the timeframe of the mod.

At its greatest extend it reached from Trebizond (northern Anatolia) and the (southern) Crimea coasts of the black sea all the way to the Caspian Sea.
Which in my opinion is an interesting part of the map gameplaywise

But I am a bit worried/afraid there is very little room for their heartland, Lazica (East of the Black Sea and south of the Caucasus mountains)

link to the youtube clip ~>

 

[Baron03]

On youtube I stumbled upon a short history of the country Georgia and noticed the timespan of the kingdom of Georgia (1008 AD - 1490 AD) fitted snugly within the timeframe of the mod.

At its greatest extend it reached from Trebizond (northern Anatolia) and the (southern) Crimea coasts of the black sea all the way to the Caspian Sea.
Which in my opinion is an interesting part of the map gameplaywise

But I am a bit worried/afraid there is very little room for their heartland, Lazica (East of the Black Sea and south of the Caucasus mountains)

link to the youtube clip ~>

The main issue for Georgia is as you said; their heartland is outside of the map. Also, their control of places like Trebizond was very brief. Therefore I don’t think they could be included as a civ within the mod. One possibility for representation, however, would be to have Georgian mercenaries for hire in Trebizond/Circassia for a historical timeframe.

This is one of the main issues I had for the Golden Horde, except there is a small section of their heartland on the eastern steppe of the map, and they controlled a large amount of territory for many years beyond it.

 

[DC123456789]

At one point it was planned that the map would be expanded and extended east to include Mesopotamia and the Caucasus, as I recall. Georgia (and Armenia) would have been part of that expansion.

 

[Baron03]

At one point it was planned that the map would be expanded and extended east to include Mesopotamia and the Caucasus, as I recall. Georgia (and Armenia) would have been part of that expansion.

I remember this, but I’m assuming it was deemed unnecessary or too complex to do. I had suggested at one point to remove several columns of the westernmost portion of the map to compensate for this since it’s mostly ocean or islands, but that would only add more work onto it...

 

[Lycidas]

To address the issue of wasted map squares for ocean/islands, whilst preserving Iceland and the Canaries/Azores be as follows:

• creation of a new terrain type (maybe "Atlantic Ocean") which takes 3 movement points to travel across, thus making the time to get to the destination/distance legitimate whilst freeing up real-estate on the map?
• this would be problematic for the stability and distance from Palace ratios though, so to balance that perhaps Corsair units /indigenous peoples using barbarian civs could be periodically spawned to represent piracy and the difficulties of colonial states?

(PS. I've been playing and loving this mod for years, and following the development threads -it's such a cool effort and much appreciated)

 

[Baron03]

These are (hopefully) the final ideas I have to include minor non-playable civs within the game. I am fairly indifferent towards adding them, but it brings into question regional gameplay. For the game overall, this is not a big deal. I would put the following four somewhere between the likelihood of adding Bosnia and Croatia. In other words, unlikely to very unlikely, and that’s my “optimistic” perspective. These are not vital to the game so don’t take them very seriously.


Naples/Amalfi

Spoiler :

Naples (Duchy: 840 – 1137)* 840 is when the city became de facto independent from Byzantium.

Timeline: 98.5 turns under new timeline

Significant? No

Territory: Small (1-city state)

Leader: Sergius I and Sergius VI

UU: N/A (Neapolitan Galley; stronger galley)

UB: N/A

This is another small potential non-playable civ for the reasons of added diplomacy, vassalage, and a little bit of a conquest challenge for the new Sicily civ when that civ is included in the mod. This would interfere with the random city spawning that occurs in southern Italy (Benevento, Capua, etc.). There are also several other minor cities of importance: Capua, Amalfi, Salerno, Benevento. I am placing this one into the red category due to the few benefits below…


Why? Southern Italy is very empty for the entire mod. However, that will change with Sicily. Byzantium controlled portions of southern Italy up until the Norman Conquest, but some areas were independent, like Lombard areas. Naples shifted back and forth from Greek influence to Roman influence. I believe they would be an interesting non-playable civ for a few reasons: vassalage, shifting alliances between Byzantium and the west, diplomacy, and a better conquest challenge to the new Sicily civ (than compared to an independent city).


This is definitely optional since an independent city works very well for the area already. The main issue I have with even suggesting this one is its name. When the new Sicily civ is added into the mod, the name “Kingdom of Naples” will likely interfere with the “Duchy of Naples” since they are so similar… If it were not for this, then I would place it in the orange category.

If Amalfi is chosen, to avoid the name issue, then everything would spawn as usual with the exception of the city name being change upon conquest

Principality of Albania (non-playable)

Spoiler :

Timeline: 1328*-1415 & 1444-1479 (League of Lezhe) including both would be 61 turns.

Leader: Karl Thopia

There really isn’t much to put here. Even the beginning date is ambiguous. The idea would be a small 3x3 flip of Durres. They would be a potential vassal and obstacle to the ottomans. However they would likely interfere with the new Serbia civ (much like adding Bosnia would).

Hospitaller Rhodes (non-playable)

Spoiler :

Timeline: 1310-1522 or 106 turns.

Leader: Jean de Lastic

UU: Hospitaller knight

Currently Rhodes is represented by an independent city on its two tile island. No one conquers it despite being only one tile separating it from mainland Turkey. This is primarily due to the AI being horrible at war across the water. I’m okay with this situation since Rhodes is not significant to the overall game, but Rhodes would be a minor player in the region by annoying the ottoman and Byzantine coasts (Smyrnite Crusader), being a Catholic ally in the region, a potential vassal, and by being a conquest target for the Turks. However, it is not that big of a deal to consider.

Kingdom of Cyprus (non-playable)

Spoiler :

Timeline: 1192-1489 or 148.5 turns.

Leaders: Guy of Lusignan and Catherine Cornaro

No Unique units, etc.

There is a little hypocrisy on my part because I don’t support a crusader state of Jerusalem or Antioch. However, the game already has a well functioning crusader mechanic; and the crusading civ cannot found a colony on Cyprus.

Cyprus is a small island, only six tiles, and often overlooked through the game. Most of the time it remains unsettled, but on occasion I do see the Arabs settle there. Historically Cyprus changed hands several times and was important for the region. The Byzantines, Arabs, crusaders, and Ottomans occupied it.

For gameplay Cyprus is limited but has potential. For its spawn it could be tied to the third crusade and an ally for crusaders in the eastern Mediterranean while attacking the coasts. It would be an important vassal state, trade/diplomacy partner, and an obstacle for Arabs, Ottomans, and Egyptians as well as Genoa and the Venetians. They would be allied with Cilicia, if it is included. Overall, I like the idea for this modest crusader state but the AI is horrible at conquering across water. My only solution to adding Cyprus would be to either have a scripted event for Venice to occupy them or code Cyprus to easily vassalize to a Catholic civ. Although I dislike using scripted events to force historical outcomes.

Is this important enough to add Cyprus? Probably not, but I wanted to entertain the idea.

Going over these has made me wonder when it’s best to use an independent city or an actual unique civ (because I like adding so many). In my view, independent cities are perfect for representing collapsed civs as independent minor states; and representing historically significant urban areas. However, they are insignificant with regards to diplomacy and regional gameplay. They are defensive in nature only (extremely rare when they invade). In other words, static. Several civs I have proposed are static in nature, but in okay with that since it allows a small chance for something ahistorical to happen. For example, Florence, Navarre, Rhodes, Cyprus, Moldavia, Wales, etc. are ‘very static’. But in my opinion they can serve more of a purpose within the game than being independent cities.

A unique civ whether playable or not would be best suited for when there is more interaction with a human or AI player. It would be more challenging, give diplomacy options and potentially a vassal. Just my thoughts on all this.

 

[Genghis Khaiser]

There is a civ that deserves to either be added, be properly represented or become a separate entity: Prussia. As in Brandenburg-Prussia that later becomes the kingdom of Prussia, as it is a different entity from the Teutonic Order.

 

[Baron03]

Two years later and I have still kept up with thoughts about this mod; although I’m afraid it has been long gone for some time now.

I did want to include a final civ as non-playable and add my thoughts about it. The Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia.

Why this as a non-playable civ? I have a few reasons. They were a significant impediment to Poland and Lithuanian expansion. They are a good representation of western Rus historical control. Something for Poland and Lithuania to conquer against, aside from settling everything. Mongol barrier/ally/vassal. Potential vassal state. They would naturally be a large thorn in Kiev’s side (historically conquering the city twice). They were also a strong and large Eastern European state for some time. I also think Poland should focus more internally or even westward since kings attacked the pagan people there.

Moreover they’re the 3rd and final “successor group” to the Rus, the other being Novgorod and Moscow. They controlled much of western Ukrainian and parts of eastern Poland as well as Moldavia and half of Belarus. Unlike other principalities like Polotsk and Smolensk; they actively invaded and conquered.

Spoiler :

Galicia-Volhynia
Timeline: 1199-1392
Significant: yes
Territory: medium to large
Turns: 64.3 old / 96 new
Spawn: Halych (current Independent city)
Leader: Roman the Great
UP/UU/UB: same as Kievan Rus.
UHVs: again I wouldn’t advertise them as playable but these are the goals I’d have in since I would play as them anyway…

1. Generate X income through trade.
2. Have X culture by year Y
3. Control Krakow to Kiev
4. Control or vassal Poland and Lithuania