Proposed Community Expansion - Help Needed!

[Krajzen]

OH MY GOD... I did long post in which I have written my 'research' about the most demanded civs for C5 taken from various very big polls... And it got deleted...
Anyway...

The most popular civs in all these big polls (thousands of votes) are:
- Kongo
- Vietnam
- Israel
- Inuits
- Tibet
- Hungary
- Canada and Australia
- another Native American Civ, preferably Sioux
- Sumer

Also, few other observations: on the workshop among the most popular civs are all of these plus Goths, Kievan Rus, Nazca, Finland, Mali, Kilwa, Indian Pack, Celtic Pack, Mexico, Burma etc.
Argentina is not really popular at all and in my opinion it is the least interesting Leugi's Civ It is less popular than Gran Colombia/Paraguay/Chile and similar to Bolivia! And all these civs are more interesting

The most popular civs which are not made yet (I don't count Vietnam and Inuits as they are close to release) are Khmer, Sioux, united Italy, I would say Finland and Serbia as their proper mods are very popular on the workshop despite them being old [Finland] or not top quality [Serbia] - isn't this sign of desperation?

So... If this expansion is going to have 17 civs [total sexy number of 60] I propose:
- Kongo, Vietnam, Israel, Inuits, Tibet, Hungary, Canada, Australia, Sumer [most popular]
- Nazca*, Mali**, Bolivia***, Mexico
- made directly by the expansion team: Finland, Serbia, Italy, Khmer [me and Senshidenshi are planning to do Khmer soon]

* - most popular Leugi civ, most popular Native American ever in the workshop, absolutely brilliant Geoglyph, Nazca>Sioux especially as we have no Sioux and Inuts already go to North America
** - most popular African civ in the workshop, very good design, 3d leaderscreen, powerful empire
*** - I love it because it has awesome features: bonuses towards religious diversity, we love the king day, golden ages and UU with bonus for happiness. IMHO by far the best Latin American Leugi's civ. Also, perfectly represents diverse Latin American societies. If not Bolivia - I support Gran Colombia or Paraguay.

This choice covers the most demanded and popular nations, the best and most popular workshop ones, it has almost perfect geographical symmetry What's not to love?


EDIT
We should decide whether there should be an expansion thread in the main thread, open for suggestions.

Upsides: we can know directly what Civ Fanatics want.

Downsides: IMHO we already know that And this thread would quickly become a victim of spam: hey include my nation! Or at least the glorious civilisation of Crimea! Hey I have brilliant idea! [impossible to do by modders] Hey make multiple leaders! Hey I am Mark and I have the best idea!

 

[Hypereon]

Age of Enlightenment

This. Not as a name, but a focus.

One of the most important ages in the history of europe, and very underrates in Civilization. The struggle between Conservatism and Liberalism, republics and monarchies - tradition and reforms. Perhaps an overhaul to the Sovial Policy system - as the culture aspect is now moved from policies to Great Works? The thing I always have missed in Civ V is the absence of government and political system.

I would like to see something like in Civ IV or Paradox's Victoria, a civic system and stability. The system would balance the power between the player and his/her nation and the rich and poor. (Simplified: elite is important for the gold output, lower class for the production/food) It would be awesome to integrate in Gedemon's Revolutions and a class system, and a limited civics and stability system. Civic change would cost something, likely give a penalty in exchange for a bonus, and maybe a dramatic change could give an one turn resistance. There should also be a time limit for changing civics, maybe one in 5 turns, and these should be unlocked with technologies or policies. Clamour for reform should also grow with scientifical development and would start to culminate in the Age of Enlightment. The new ideology, conservatism, would then give bonuses to maintaining the order with maintaining old policies.

I remember JFD was working with something like this, Sovereignty Revisited?

 

[Krajzen]

I agree with Enlightment.

Generally speaking, this expansion should cover time span... approximately... XVI century - WWI, right? Enlightment is definitely the most underdeveloped era in Civ5

As I have written on previous page, Gods and Kings developed early eras and Offensive Methods - combat system, religion, espionage. Brave New World developed late eras and Gentle Methods - ideological pressure, 'cultural war', trade routes.
Rise of Empires should IMO cover the most underdeveloped areas:
1) Middle game, renaissance/enlightment. Fits perfectly 2).
2) Expansion and exploration. Colonialism. Really many people complain on underdeveloped 'expansion' aspect of the game, no need for colonies and expansion and so on.
3) Diplomacy, World Congress and AI. Merging Civ IV diplomatic features + Smart AI + [expanded Congress, Alliances] would be perfect, but this would be definitely the most difficult part of the entire project... DLL.
4) Internal managament - Hypereon, I would simply support including JFD's WIP project into this expansion Also I would support integration of Emigration/Health and Plague/maybe few other mods with Rise of Empires.
5)Balance and tweaks
6) Optional JFD's Cultural Diversity. Come on, this project is awesome.

Also, among features, personally I dream about something close to Rhye's Rise and Fall: compilation of yet another earth maps pack + custom civs + historical spawn dates + mechanisms of our expansion = something brilliant.

 

[JFD]

I'm just going to monopolise on this

Any thoughts on new resources for the expansion? Viregel's colonialism/exploration mechanic will be heavily based upon a small overhaul that I'm working on to update my Exploration Continued mod.

 

[senshidenshi]

Name-wise, what about "Coal and Colonies"?

Pretty much sums up the theme of the expansion. And the acronym

 

[TPangolin]

Still against 17 civs. I think we should leave it at 9 and focus on mechanics that don't overhaul, but add to the more boring parts to make the game fully rounded. As said previously, we want this to be accessible and condusive to the other expansions as possible, and I feel adding 17 civs is a bit of an over complication. Perhaps we should take 17 of the most popular civs and put it to a vote for the top 9 places. I can advertise it on Reddit and stuff too.

If put to a vote, we can do it two ways. Either a straight up 17 civ poll and pick the top 7 (the devs can choose the final 2), or we can categorize them into 2 Asian Civs (Mughals, Vietnam, Tibet, Maurya, Maratha, Burma) 2 Native American (Inuit, Nazca, Tupi, Sioux, Zapotecs, Anishinaabe) , 2 Colonial (Australia, Canada, Mexico, Argentina), 1 Sub-Saharan (Kongo, Zimbabwe, Mali, Benin) and the devs can pick the final 2 (most likely 1 European and another African).

In terms of resources - I agree. I propose Opals, Flax, Maple and Tea (representative of colonial resources). And please, include as much as JFD's exploration stuff as possible.


Name-wise, here are is a full list of suggestions:

2 Words

Global Dynasties
Terra Nova
Empires Rising
Colonialist Legacies (surprisingly fitting.....) +1

3 Words

Forge of Nations
On Distant Shores
Upon the Horizon
Towards the Sun
Age of Enlightenment
Age of Industry
Age of Independance
Into Their Own
Rise of Empires
Across the Seas
Republics & Revolutions
Dawn of Imperialism
Blood and Iron

4 Words

Birth of a Legacy
A Whole New World


6 Words
A New Fantastic Point of View

 

[Pouakai]

I'm with TPangolin on this one. If you're wanting it to feel like a Vanilla expansion (and not be 1gb big) keep it at 9 civs. What I would do to decide exactly what civs you should include is first decide on the scenarios and mechanics you're wanting to include. G&K had a couple civs for Fall of Rome, a couple for the Renaissance scenario, and a couple for religion, while BNW had a couple arguably for the SfA scenario but focused primarily on the new mechanics.

Alternatively you could decide the theme and go from there. Based on what I'm seeing at the moment, it seems like the theme is roughly colonialism & the Enlightenment with a bit of a reference to WW1.
Based on this, I think Belgium could fit (since they're the last colonial civ from that age to have an empire you can see on a world map without a magnifying glass). As for a scenario, you could probably have a colonisation of India / SE Asia scenario with Britain, the Mughals (they were still around), perhaps the Maratha as Scenario-only and so on.

 

[Viregel]

On the number of civs - it's for two main reasons. The first is the fact that all Firaxis expansions include more civs, and as that is what we're aiming for here, the expansion thus has more civs. Also, because there's a proposed seventeen civs in this expansion, it means that we're left with a nice round 60. Also, reasoning: Serbia triggered the First World War (which is the focus, though Serbia has done a lot of other stuff besides that), and by including the Durrani (which I'm probably going to rename to Afghanistan), it's meant to be a more subtle reminder that conflicts are still raging on in a ton of places all over the world, Afghanistan probably being the most notorious. Besides that, however, the Durrani Empire was massively interesting, and even though it only lasted for around a hundred years or so, it was once the second-largest Islamic empire, and the last true Afghan empire as well. Adding more civs also helps in some ways to avoid conflict, which is pretty important. Furthermore, this means more opportunities - better integration with mechanics for the civs, meaning (hopefully) more fun. I'll try to compile as much as possible at some point, and then we can decide properly on it - should it come to the point where there is no progress due to disagreement over the amount of civs, I can always try to release a larger one and a smaller one.

 

[TPangolin]

Well if this is a proposed community expansion, perhaps the community should decide on the number of civs.

The point is to make it as condusive (I can't stop saying that word now, thanks JFD...) and as accessible as something Firaxis would make. Filesizes that are too large and the influx of a scary amount of new civs may prove to be more of a detractor than an attractor.

Something something put it to a vote?

 

[TPangolin]

Speaking of a vote - Here is a concept for a poll if we wanted to end up with 9 Civs. I've categorized them into Asian (2), Native American (2), Colonial (2), Subsaharan (1) and Other (developers will pick the final 2 in this scenario).

Clickity Click yo - Link to Poll

To avoid bias, you all the possible answers are shuffled. There is also a maximum amount of choices you can pick. You will already be able to vote on this and see the results.

If people like this idea - we can move onwards and share this around like it's nobody's business!

(I voted for Mughals, Vietnam, Australia, Canada, Inuits, Nazca and Mali).

Results

 

[Pouakai]

With all due respect, I think it's a bad idea to divide it up so broadly between the regions. If we look at the last two expansions:

G&K|
Civ | Focus
Austria|Into the Renaissance scenario
Byzantium|Fall of Rome and ItR scenarios
Carthage | FoR scenario
Celts | FoR and Religion
Ethiopia | Religion
Huns | FoR
Maya | Religion
The Netherlands| ItR
Sweden | ItR
Spain | ItR

BNW|
Civ | Focus
Assyria |
Brazil | Culture system
Ethiopia | Scramble for Africa scenario
Indonesia | Trade routes
Morocco | SfA and Trade
Poland| Popular demand
Portugal| SfA and Trade
Shoshone|
Venice | Trade
Zulu | SfA

With the exception of a couple civs in BNW, all of the civs included in the two expansions either had something to do with a mechanic or a scenario. G&K was heavily Eurocentric because the scenarios were, whereas BNW had the most African civs per capita in a Civ 5 product because of the Scramble for Africa scenario. Separating the civs across such a broad geographic expanse will mean the expansion is disjointed and lacks synergy. First, we need to decide on what the scenarios and mechanics are going to be, then we work out a list of 9 civs from there, with at least 7 of them directly relating to either a scenario or a new mechanic.

 

[Craig_Sutter]

If the concern is that there are too many regions, we could have an "Into the Enlightenment" scenario spanning the whole world. All regions would need to be covered in such an instance.

 

[Hypereon]

With all due respect, I think it's a bad idea to divide it up so broadly between the regions. If we look at the last two expansions:

G&K|
Civ | Focus
Austria|Into the Renaissance scenario
Byzantium|Fall of Rome and ItR scenarios
Carthage | FoR scenario
Celts | FoR and Religion
Ethiopia | Religion
Huns | FoR
Maya | Religion
The Netherlands| ItR
Sweden | ItR
Spain | ItR

BNW|
Civ | Focus
Assyria |
Brazil | Culture system
Ethiopia | Scramble for Africa scenario
Indonesia | Trade routes
Morocco | SfA and Trade
Poland| Popular demand
Portugal| SfA and Trade
Shoshone|
Venice | Trade
Zulu | SfA

With the exception of a couple civs in BNW, all of the civs included in the two expansions either had something to do with a mechanic or a scenario. G&K was heavily Eurocentric because the scenarios were, whereas BNW had the most African civs per capita in a Civ 5 product because of the Scramble for Africa scenario. Separating the civs across such a broad geographic expanse will mean the expansion is disjointed and lacks synergy. First, we need to decide on what the scenarios and mechanics are going to be, then we work out a list of 9 civs from there, with at least 7 of them directly relating to either a scenario or a new mechanic.

I'm with Pouakai. I think 2 Native civilizations is a bit too much, and because of the theme, I would allow in a couple more European civilizations. Of course, we could add high quality scenario civilizations also in, which people could then download as a separate pack.

Let's look what we've got, here's my suggestion (I used the poll as a reference)

New Expansion|
Civ | Focus
Italy | WWI, popular demand, Rise of Empires scenario as Sardinia
Hungary | popular demand
Belgium | Colonialism
Vietnam | RoE scenario, demand
Mughals | RoE scenario, great empire, India split needed
Sioux | Need more natives, a Plains civ would fit, Independence Scenario?
Kongo | My favourite from Sub-Saharan Africa
Mexico | Colonies/Independence Scenario?
Candidates for the 9th place | Reasons?
Afghanistan | Viregel's favourite, an interesting civ
Gran Colombia | Colonies/Independence Scenario
Canada | People seem to love this, I'm not sure how suitable it is
Great Britain | Wildcard, or a secondary leader system for some civs?
Finland | My country OK, no serious reason to add these guys to 9 civs, sorry. I will probably make a new version of it, due the popularity it still has in the Workshop. (It has been featured in some local gaming magazines, too!)
Scenario-only |
Maratha Confederacy | A must in the RoE scenario, otherwise maybe too close to India.
Prussia | RoE: Basically Germany. Could change to Germany after certain conditions.
Great Britain | RoE: Rename, new leader, new UU
Bourbon France | RoE: Need Louis XIV!
Pirates | RoE: Maybe a changed Barbarian system?
Sardinia/Savoy | RoE: Basically Italy. Could change to Italy after certain conditions.
Serbia | WWI
Gran Colombia | Independence scenario
Argentina | Ind. scenario

 

[Pouakai]

I think a whole world scenario is too problematic - too big and people can't run it, too small and it gets distorted. Also there's not enough civs to adequately fill the map (we're limited to a total of 63 civs and city states). In general, scenarios are specific snapshots, as opposed to massive things. Without knowing what mechanics are going to be included, I have a feeling that a WW1 scenario could work (although it seems almost a bit big too maybe?), as well as potentially a South America liberation scenario or a colonisation of India one. Each one of those would provide a set of civs to go with it and more focus for the pack

So first, we need to decide what scenarios we're having

 

[JFD]

Whoever voted for the Papal States, bless you (pun intended)

I believe this poll is highly superfluous. It may even be damaging to this project. If the popular outcome is rejected on the grounds that the choices are not thematic, or that the choices are lacking of available assets, then people are going to be upset; maybe they'll even reject the project. If the poll's results are accepted, looking at the trend of voting, you may wind up with civs that have very little cohesion with Viregel's intent for this expansion (what does the Nazca have to do with the Great War? Or what connection to European colonialism? If there is any, it's certainly obscure).

I believe it is being forgotten, or ignored, that Viregel intended this mod to revolve around the Great War. This has gradually expanded to include the Colonial era, and is slipping even into the Enlightenment. This may not be what Viregel wants to happen. It's fine to incorporate ideas of the colonial era, but they, and any civs inspired by them, should be secondary to that primary focus; and rather act as a thematic facilitator of Great War themes.

Do not assume that this project is called a Community Expansion for that it is designed by the community, when it could just as equally be so as it incorporates the most cohesive and game-enhancing products of the community.

I think a whole world scenario is too problematic - too big and people can't run it, too small and it gets distorted. Also there's not enough civs to adequately fill the map (we're limited to a total of 63 civs and city states). In general, scenarios are specific snapshots, as opposed to massive things. Without knowing what mechanics are going to be included, I have a feeling that a WW1 scenario could work (although it seems almost a bit big too maybe?), as well as potentially a South America liberation scenario or a colonisation of India one. Each one of those would provide a set of civs to go with it and more focus for the pack

So first, we need to decide what scenarios we're having

World War One scenario would be the best option. The theater only needs to be Europe; everything else is a consequence of the war in Europe and the colonial empires that they were able to throw around.

 

[Pouakai]

Something else I also think is worth mentioning is that this isn't like mods in Civ 4 - we don't need to include the Nazca for fear of not being able to use them. It'd be easy to simply use both the Community Expansion and the Nazca. With that in mind, I think the scenarios and mechanics ought to take priority over the popular demand civs, for lack of a better term for the latter

 

[TPangolin]

@Pouakai, it's a division of regions sure, but since we don't know any gameplay elements - what else do we have to go off? I'm just simply taking the initiative, and even if nothing comes of it, it's good to see the results for my own personal reasons.

Regardless, even if we do figure out mechanics and new features, is it really a good idea (serious question) to use existing modded civs as inclusions in this proposed expansion?

Or is it a better idea to come up with these said mechanics, features and then alter these modded civs and some vanilla civs to utilize these new features? This is something that needs to be considered.

As you mentioned, civs like the Maya, Portugal, Brazil and Ethiopia have elements specifically designed for their respective expansions. To include 17 civs and not have any that utlize these new functions would seem somewhat interesting.

(what does the Nazca have to do with the Great War? Or what connection to European colonialism? If there is any, it's certainly obscure)

Well, Assyria had nothing really to do with BNW, neither did the Shoshone or stronk Poland.

Do not assume that this project is called a Community Expansion for that it is designed by the community, when it could just as equally be so as it incorporates the most cohesive and game-enhancing products of the community.

I totally assumed the former with a hint of the latter. In my mind I was thinking of a Community expansion, formulated by the community, based on popular demand, but guided by the developers.

If my assumption was wrong, then apologies for being daft and I'll think I'll respect Viregel's wishes and original focus (Great War) and provide opinions based on that then.

Regardless, this thread has been great for brainstorming. I might just go ahead and formulate a full exploration, colonization, enlightenment Expansion (Ren-Industrial).

I've spent the whole day coming up ideas and I think I've come up with some really nice and cohesive ideas. I've got some great ideas for Colonization, new resources and their utilization, enlightenment and exploration without over complicating things.

I think I'll call it..... "Colonialist Legacies"

 

[COF]

Can I make a proposal for the Colonization mechanic?

Upon entering the renaissance era you should unlock a new unit, the colonist.
It's a settler type unit that's only able to settle on different continents.
Cities founded by them should start with a palace bonus but should cost maintenance and have other bonuses like faster border expansion and start with a worker.

If the city, however becomes unhappy it should create more rebels than normal cities.
And if Belgium won't have a colony focus they shouldn't be in the expansion.
They are the only colonial European Civ that is left, except Italy.

 

[JFD]

Well, Assyria had nothing really to do with BNW, neither did the Shoshone or stronk Poland.

I was making a general point. Besides, we can make better designs than Firaxis, can't we?

Regardless, even if we do figure out mechanics and new features, is it really a good idea (serious question) to use existing modded civs as inclusions in this proposed expansion?
Or is it a better idea to come up with these said mechanics, features and then alter these modded civs and some vanilla civs to utilize these new features? This is something that needs to be considered.

I believe Viregel plans to do just that. He intends, at least, to include my Hungary, but with a UA more befitting the theme of the expansion.

Something else I also think is worth mentioning is that this isn't like mods in Civ 4 - we don't need to include the Nazca for fear of not being able to use them. It'd be easy to simply use both the Community Expansion and the Nazca. With that in mind, I think the scenarios and mechanics ought to take priority over the popular demand civs, for lack of a better term for the latter

I fully endorse this statement

Can I make a proposal for the Colonization mechanic?

Upon entering the renaissance era you should unlock a new unit, the colonist.
It's a settler type unit that's only able to settle on different continents.
Cities founded by them should start with a palace bonus but should cost maintenance and have other bonuses like faster border expansion and start with a worker.

Renaissance? Or a specific tech like Astronomy?

 

[COF]

Renaissance? Or a specific tech like Astronomy?

If Viergel wants to make a new tech tree he could just make a new tech for it, otherwise it should probably be Astronomy.