Hypereon
He was a Consul of Rome!
What if we restricted settling foreign continents to colonization? Every far-away city would start as a colony and then, under specific conditions met, could be transformed into a core city of the empire.
Proposed Community Expansion - Help Needed!
- Thread starter Viregel
- Start date
Viregel
, The Rt. Hon.
Here's my current line of thought:
Italy
Italy has always been a massively important player on the world’s stage. From the days of Rome, it has wielded considerable influence over the European continent and the world. During the Renaissance period, the city-states of the peninsula were united in one thing; their splendour. Venice and Genoa established massive trading empires, while others, such as Florence and Milan, were renounced for their fantastic artistic geniuses. Italy’s explorers and merchants, such as Christopher Columbus and Marco Polo, went out to discover the globe. During the 19th century, Giuseppe Garibaldi reunited the peninsula, creating the state of Italy, which went on to be involved in both World Wars, playing a major role in them, while not participating in much combat. Today, it is a major tourism attraction, with its beautiful landscapes and fantastic historical sites.
Hungary
Located in Eastern Europe, Hungary is an ancient state that was founded in the 10th century. However, it was soon converted to a Christian kingdom, with the eventual hope of presiding over the Balkans. However, Hungary’s ambitions were ruined towards the end of the medieval period, when the Hungarians were attacked constantly by the Turks, and fell into a state of perpetual disarray, eventually splitting into three separate kingdoms. The Habsburgs tried to establish themselves in Hungary, but only during the 19th century did they succeed, thereby founding the unstable state of Austria-Hungary. After triggering alliances to begin the First World War, Austria-Hungary was effectively destroyed, meaning the end of their state. Hungary was eventually made a puppet of the Soviet Union, and only recently gained freedom from this.
Belgium
A relatively new state, Belgium has its roots in the Napoleonic Wars, and the Battle of Waterloo was fought there in 1815. Belgium declared independence from the United Provinces of The Netherlands in 1830, and was formalised by the Treaty of London in 1839, which was a guarantee from Britain that they would protect them provided they stayed neutral. Belgium soon embarked on colonialist endeavours, with King Leopold II taking the entire Kongonese territory as his personal land, and even participated in the Industrial Revolution, creating thousands of new jobs. The invasion of Belgium by the Germans in 1914 sparked Britain’s alliance with them, who quickly came to help, and began the First World War. Belgium regained independence after the war, but come 1939, it was yet again invaded by Germany during their Invasion of France. Britain once more liberated it, and made firm allies of them. Today, Belgium’s neutrality makes it the centre of the European Union, and it is also an economic powerhouse.
Finland
In the large expanses of tundra and lakes, Finland is a nation that has endured countless conflicts and overwhelming numbers against – while still surviving. The Finnish people’s history dates back thousands of years, but has rarely been independent. The people were incorporated into the Kalmar Union, and later the Swedish Empire, both times serving them, but in the hope that they may eventually be freed. The Russian Empire later annexed Finland, which they later regretted – during the First World War, the Finns destroyed Russian supremacy in the region, and got full independence from the disintegrating empire. During the Second World War, Finland was asked to cede territories to the Soviet Union, along with some other states – however, Finland was the only one that refused to comply with the Soviet’s demands. Fearing war, the Mannerheim Line was constructed in the Karelian Isthmus, which served as Finland’s main defence against the overwhelming Russian numbers. Against all odds, Finland’s heroic military yet again destroyed the Russian forces, leaving Finland an independent nation, in Soviet-occupied Europe.
Afghanistan
A mostly nomadic people dating back to time immemorial, the Afghans inhabit a dry, landlocked area to the west of the Indian subcontinent. The country known as Afghanistan is nicknamed “The Graveyard of Empires” – because many great nations have failed to win wars in their lands, including the Macedonia, the Mongols, the British, the Soviet Union and the USA. The Afghans have been taken by other powers, including the Arabs and the Timiruds. The last Afghan Empire was that of the Durrani – at its peak, the second-largest Islamic empire in the world. The nation was ruined during the 19th century during the “Great Game”, where Britain and Russia began competing for control in the region. The land was given an uneasy independence after the World Wars, but later became a battleground in the Cold War, with the Soviets and the Americans competing to win over the country, the latter creating the Taliban in the process. Today, Afghanistan is making a slow return to democracy, though still ravaged by war and violence.
Israel
From the ashes of its many predecessors, Israel in its current form is a creation of the UN, though its history stretches back further. It was said to have been inhabited by the Jews since Moses lead them to Israel, or the Promised Land, around five-thousand years ago. The Kingdom of Judea, or Israel, was then established, with prominent leaders such as David and Saul. The land was shared with the Phoenicians, and subsequently taken over by the Roman Empire, and Christianity was founded there during that period. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Arabs inhabited the land, which leads to disputes to this day. The land around Israel was divided up after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. After the horrors of the Holocaust in the Second World War, the United Nations issued a mandate to create the state of Israel in its original form, which spurred violence in the region between the Palestinians and the Jews, which still continues to this day.
Kongo
The Kingdom of Kongo was once dominant in the jungle regions of southern Africa. It was well-established when the Europeans arrived in the 15th and 16th centuries. Once the Portuguese met with them, relations were good, and they converted them to Christianity. However, slavery was still a widespread problem, as the Portuguese had to bring them to Latin America to work, as the Jesuit priests didn’t allow them to use the natives as slaves. This continued until the 19th century, when the nations of Europe decided to colonise and invade their native lands. Belgium took over the territory, and Leopold II ruled the region ruthlessly, forcing the inhabitants to work plantations until they dropped dead. The scandal over the work in the Kongo forced Leopold to resign, and Kongonese independence calls were only recognised in the 1950s, with an unstable transition of government. Today, the region that was once home to the Kingdom of Kongo, and so many other tribes, is now poverty-stricken, child soldiers are used in the wild east of the country, and is now only a shadow of its past.
Mexico
The most populous Latin American nation, Mexico is a state centred on finding the ideal solution for all. Having independence for just under a century meant about six different forms of government and countless revolts. Mexico gained independence from Spain during the Napoleonic Wars, formalised in 1821 by the Plan of Iguala. After this, the First Mexican Empire was established, later to become a republic. It yet again reverted to an empire under Maximillian, only to be deposed by Benito Juarez two years later. Portfirio Diaz later attempted to create a strong Mexican state, over to be overthrown a few years prior to the Great War due to his authoritarian ruling style. Mexico was asked to enter the war by Germany via the Zimmerman Telegram, but this was intercepted by the British, forming part of the reason for the USA to join the First World War. Mexico, however, didn’t actively join the war, but later went on to develop its economy while wars were raging on. However, it still has a lot of problems with poverty and crime.
Argentina
The largest of the Spanish-speaking states, Argentina is a nation which has had several political systems in its time in existence. It got independence from Spain under José de San Martin, the founder and father of the nation. The capital, Buenos Aries, was described as “The Paris of Latin America”, due to its beauty and trading magnificence. Argentina remained neutral during the World Wars, but managed to establish more trading links than ever before, and came out the end of the First World War as the seventh-largest economy in the world. During the late 20th century, Argentina came under the leadership of Juan Peron, and perhaps more so, his wife, Eva. Together, they ruled the nation, with Eva as the beloved of the country, but amid calls for her to run for Vice-President, she sadly died. Argentina went into a deep period of mourning, and a few years later, Juan was ousted. Under this new dictator, the Argentines invaded the Falklands Islands, a British-owned territory off the coast of Argentina. The Argentine invasion of the Falklands Islands was disastrous, but to this day, Argentina claims ownership of the isles.
Just to prove the thematic feeling, the scenarios:
WWI (Belgium, Finland, Italy, Hungary, Israel (to some extent))
Europe - Rise of Empires (Hungary, Italy)
American Independence (Argentina, Mexico)
The other choices fit well with the systems:
Exploration (Kongo, Finland, Afghanistan (Trust me - the system reflects this well))
Colonialism (Belgium, Italy, Kongo)
Alliances (Belgium, Afghanistan, Israel)
Note that community help is still needed - I think that these choices are pretty strong, but I need input to decide if these should make it to the final cut. They are thought out so that they fit the theme of Firaxis expansions though, so try to stick with that. Thank you very much for any suggestions!
Italy
Italy has always been a massively important player on the world’s stage. From the days of Rome, it has wielded considerable influence over the European continent and the world. During the Renaissance period, the city-states of the peninsula were united in one thing; their splendour. Venice and Genoa established massive trading empires, while others, such as Florence and Milan, were renounced for their fantastic artistic geniuses. Italy’s explorers and merchants, such as Christopher Columbus and Marco Polo, went out to discover the globe. During the 19th century, Giuseppe Garibaldi reunited the peninsula, creating the state of Italy, which went on to be involved in both World Wars, playing a major role in them, while not participating in much combat. Today, it is a major tourism attraction, with its beautiful landscapes and fantastic historical sites.
Hungary
Located in Eastern Europe, Hungary is an ancient state that was founded in the 10th century. However, it was soon converted to a Christian kingdom, with the eventual hope of presiding over the Balkans. However, Hungary’s ambitions were ruined towards the end of the medieval period, when the Hungarians were attacked constantly by the Turks, and fell into a state of perpetual disarray, eventually splitting into three separate kingdoms. The Habsburgs tried to establish themselves in Hungary, but only during the 19th century did they succeed, thereby founding the unstable state of Austria-Hungary. After triggering alliances to begin the First World War, Austria-Hungary was effectively destroyed, meaning the end of their state. Hungary was eventually made a puppet of the Soviet Union, and only recently gained freedom from this.
Belgium
A relatively new state, Belgium has its roots in the Napoleonic Wars, and the Battle of Waterloo was fought there in 1815. Belgium declared independence from the United Provinces of The Netherlands in 1830, and was formalised by the Treaty of London in 1839, which was a guarantee from Britain that they would protect them provided they stayed neutral. Belgium soon embarked on colonialist endeavours, with King Leopold II taking the entire Kongonese territory as his personal land, and even participated in the Industrial Revolution, creating thousands of new jobs. The invasion of Belgium by the Germans in 1914 sparked Britain’s alliance with them, who quickly came to help, and began the First World War. Belgium regained independence after the war, but come 1939, it was yet again invaded by Germany during their Invasion of France. Britain once more liberated it, and made firm allies of them. Today, Belgium’s neutrality makes it the centre of the European Union, and it is also an economic powerhouse.
Finland
In the large expanses of tundra and lakes, Finland is a nation that has endured countless conflicts and overwhelming numbers against – while still surviving. The Finnish people’s history dates back thousands of years, but has rarely been independent. The people were incorporated into the Kalmar Union, and later the Swedish Empire, both times serving them, but in the hope that they may eventually be freed. The Russian Empire later annexed Finland, which they later regretted – during the First World War, the Finns destroyed Russian supremacy in the region, and got full independence from the disintegrating empire. During the Second World War, Finland was asked to cede territories to the Soviet Union, along with some other states – however, Finland was the only one that refused to comply with the Soviet’s demands. Fearing war, the Mannerheim Line was constructed in the Karelian Isthmus, which served as Finland’s main defence against the overwhelming Russian numbers. Against all odds, Finland’s heroic military yet again destroyed the Russian forces, leaving Finland an independent nation, in Soviet-occupied Europe.
Afghanistan
A mostly nomadic people dating back to time immemorial, the Afghans inhabit a dry, landlocked area to the west of the Indian subcontinent. The country known as Afghanistan is nicknamed “The Graveyard of Empires” – because many great nations have failed to win wars in their lands, including the Macedonia, the Mongols, the British, the Soviet Union and the USA. The Afghans have been taken by other powers, including the Arabs and the Timiruds. The last Afghan Empire was that of the Durrani – at its peak, the second-largest Islamic empire in the world. The nation was ruined during the 19th century during the “Great Game”, where Britain and Russia began competing for control in the region. The land was given an uneasy independence after the World Wars, but later became a battleground in the Cold War, with the Soviets and the Americans competing to win over the country, the latter creating the Taliban in the process. Today, Afghanistan is making a slow return to democracy, though still ravaged by war and violence.
Israel
From the ashes of its many predecessors, Israel in its current form is a creation of the UN, though its history stretches back further. It was said to have been inhabited by the Jews since Moses lead them to Israel, or the Promised Land, around five-thousand years ago. The Kingdom of Judea, or Israel, was then established, with prominent leaders such as David and Saul. The land was shared with the Phoenicians, and subsequently taken over by the Roman Empire, and Christianity was founded there during that period. After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Arabs inhabited the land, which leads to disputes to this day. The land around Israel was divided up after the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. After the horrors of the Holocaust in the Second World War, the United Nations issued a mandate to create the state of Israel in its original form, which spurred violence in the region between the Palestinians and the Jews, which still continues to this day.
Kongo
The Kingdom of Kongo was once dominant in the jungle regions of southern Africa. It was well-established when the Europeans arrived in the 15th and 16th centuries. Once the Portuguese met with them, relations were good, and they converted them to Christianity. However, slavery was still a widespread problem, as the Portuguese had to bring them to Latin America to work, as the Jesuit priests didn’t allow them to use the natives as slaves. This continued until the 19th century, when the nations of Europe decided to colonise and invade their native lands. Belgium took over the territory, and Leopold II ruled the region ruthlessly, forcing the inhabitants to work plantations until they dropped dead. The scandal over the work in the Kongo forced Leopold to resign, and Kongonese independence calls were only recognised in the 1950s, with an unstable transition of government. Today, the region that was once home to the Kingdom of Kongo, and so many other tribes, is now poverty-stricken, child soldiers are used in the wild east of the country, and is now only a shadow of its past.
Mexico
The most populous Latin American nation, Mexico is a state centred on finding the ideal solution for all. Having independence for just under a century meant about six different forms of government and countless revolts. Mexico gained independence from Spain during the Napoleonic Wars, formalised in 1821 by the Plan of Iguala. After this, the First Mexican Empire was established, later to become a republic. It yet again reverted to an empire under Maximillian, only to be deposed by Benito Juarez two years later. Portfirio Diaz later attempted to create a strong Mexican state, over to be overthrown a few years prior to the Great War due to his authoritarian ruling style. Mexico was asked to enter the war by Germany via the Zimmerman Telegram, but this was intercepted by the British, forming part of the reason for the USA to join the First World War. Mexico, however, didn’t actively join the war, but later went on to develop its economy while wars were raging on. However, it still has a lot of problems with poverty and crime.
Argentina
The largest of the Spanish-speaking states, Argentina is a nation which has had several political systems in its time in existence. It got independence from Spain under José de San Martin, the founder and father of the nation. The capital, Buenos Aries, was described as “The Paris of Latin America”, due to its beauty and trading magnificence. Argentina remained neutral during the World Wars, but managed to establish more trading links than ever before, and came out the end of the First World War as the seventh-largest economy in the world. During the late 20th century, Argentina came under the leadership of Juan Peron, and perhaps more so, his wife, Eva. Together, they ruled the nation, with Eva as the beloved of the country, but amid calls for her to run for Vice-President, she sadly died. Argentina went into a deep period of mourning, and a few years later, Juan was ousted. Under this new dictator, the Argentines invaded the Falklands Islands, a British-owned territory off the coast of Argentina. The Argentine invasion of the Falklands Islands was disastrous, but to this day, Argentina claims ownership of the isles.
Just to prove the thematic feeling, the scenarios:
WWI (Belgium, Finland, Italy, Hungary, Israel (to some extent))
Europe - Rise of Empires (Hungary, Italy)
American Independence (Argentina, Mexico)
The other choices fit well with the systems:
Exploration (Kongo, Finland, Afghanistan (Trust me - the system reflects this well))
Colonialism (Belgium, Italy, Kongo)
Alliances (Belgium, Afghanistan, Israel)
Note that community help is still needed - I think that these choices are pretty strong, but I need input to decide if these should make it to the final cut. They are thought out so that they fit the theme of Firaxis expansions though, so try to stick with that. Thank you very much for any suggestions!
whoward69
DLL Minion
It's ALL about "replayability" - what is going to make the people that download this pack want to replay it more than another mod? And that is all about scenarios, scenarios, scenarios and mechanics.
BNW Civil War - two sides, two reasons to play what is basically the same thing.
Scramble for Africa - three sides (European, Saharan and Sub-Saharan) with different victory conditions - three reasons to play the same thing with additional sub-tasks - longest railway, first to find wonders, etc
Trade routes - forced a rethink on early game gold. What is the new "personal best" opening strategy
Archaeology - changes the late game dynamic, again forces a rethink of strategy.
The different civs then add flavour to the new ways to play, but (and I'll go out on a limb here) are not the main reason for playing - as a civ on its own is just a different way to one of the 5 standard victories. So the majority of the civs primarily need to bring different dimensions to the new scenarios/mechanics.
New wonders/resources should also fit the scenarios and not just be there for a sugar coating.
What are the most boring mechanics? The passive ones.
Espionage. Use the UI to put a spy somewhere - a number of turns later use the UI to pick a tech or get a notification about a rigged vote or a stolen tech or a killed spy - BORING!!!
World Congress. Pick a proposal, spend 5 turns now wiping out the AI with most votes, or in 25 turns try and drum up support, but basically do something on turn 1, forget about it for 25 turns and then get a notification - BORING!!!
Trade Routes. No more gold yield based decisions about where best to place new cities, just build a unit (click, wait) and then use the UI to set up a trade route, then forget about it for 30 turns until it has to be set up again - ZZZZZ!!!
At least with religion there are the decisions of what to spend the faith on - a missionary now or a prophet later; defend from other religions with an inquisitor or go on the offensive with faith units (combat or religious); do I really want to send a missionary half-way around the globe to that City State or consolidate nearer to home?
Spies could be turned into 1-move units with a 3/4/5 (depending on level) tile "leash" connecting them to their base city - they can then be used to explore (albeit slowly) or perform tasks (eg pillage) with a risk of capture (expulsion/death and diplo hit) or perhaps aid the base city (acting as a look out for barbarians/foreign troops with positive diplo). More buildings to defend against spying (and dial back Constabulary and Police Station) - walls have gates, gates have guards, guards defend against spies. Barracks have troops, troops patrol, patrols make a spy's life harder. Temples have priests, Joe Public confides in the priest, the priest (being a good public citizen) passes on anonymised information to the authorities ... or does he, if the city has a religious majority from another civ perhaps he's a double agent?
World Congress - who knows, but more resolutions with the same 25 turn hiatus are not the way to go IMHO - it needs to be more involving, if not on a turn-by-turn basis at least every 5 turns or so.
Trade Routes - what an opportunity missed! I have oranges, the Maya don't so I'll build a trade unit, load it up with oranges, take a warrior along as an escort and head for the Mayan capital. I get paid for the trip based on simple supply and demand logic. The Maya have silver, who wants silver? Where is my next port of call? Trade units upgrade (carry more, go further/faster, have better refrigeration - less spoilage en-route) - caravan, supply train, lorry, HGV, road-train and boat, coastal freighter, bulk carrier, container ship, Mary Maersk! (For more details see the basic supply/demand logic of RailRoad Tycoon.) We Love The King Days now require you to actually deliver the goods, not just connect them.
TL;DR; FIRST scenarios (one hack-and-slay, one tactical to appeal to all audiences) then new/altered mechanics (preferably fitting into at least one of the scenarios) then Civs to add flavour/variation to the scenarios, then wonders to add sugar to the scenarios.
BNW Civil War - two sides, two reasons to play what is basically the same thing.
Scramble for Africa - three sides (European, Saharan and Sub-Saharan) with different victory conditions - three reasons to play the same thing with additional sub-tasks - longest railway, first to find wonders, etc
Trade routes - forced a rethink on early game gold. What is the new "personal best" opening strategy
Archaeology - changes the late game dynamic, again forces a rethink of strategy.
The different civs then add flavour to the new ways to play, but (and I'll go out on a limb here) are not the main reason for playing - as a civ on its own is just a different way to one of the 5 standard victories. So the majority of the civs primarily need to bring different dimensions to the new scenarios/mechanics.
New wonders/resources should also fit the scenarios and not just be there for a sugar coating.
What are the most boring mechanics? The passive ones.
Espionage. Use the UI to put a spy somewhere - a number of turns later use the UI to pick a tech or get a notification about a rigged vote or a stolen tech or a killed spy - BORING!!!
World Congress. Pick a proposal, spend 5 turns now wiping out the AI with most votes, or in 25 turns try and drum up support, but basically do something on turn 1, forget about it for 25 turns and then get a notification - BORING!!!
Trade Routes. No more gold yield based decisions about where best to place new cities, just build a unit (click, wait) and then use the UI to set up a trade route, then forget about it for 30 turns until it has to be set up again - ZZZZZ!!!
At least with religion there are the decisions of what to spend the faith on - a missionary now or a prophet later; defend from other religions with an inquisitor or go on the offensive with faith units (combat or religious); do I really want to send a missionary half-way around the globe to that City State or consolidate nearer to home?
Spies could be turned into 1-move units with a 3/4/5 (depending on level) tile "leash" connecting them to their base city - they can then be used to explore (albeit slowly) or perform tasks (eg pillage) with a risk of capture (expulsion/death and diplo hit) or perhaps aid the base city (acting as a look out for barbarians/foreign troops with positive diplo). More buildings to defend against spying (and dial back Constabulary and Police Station) - walls have gates, gates have guards, guards defend against spies. Barracks have troops, troops patrol, patrols make a spy's life harder. Temples have priests, Joe Public confides in the priest, the priest (being a good public citizen) passes on anonymised information to the authorities ... or does he, if the city has a religious majority from another civ perhaps he's a double agent?
World Congress - who knows, but more resolutions with the same 25 turn hiatus are not the way to go IMHO - it needs to be more involving, if not on a turn-by-turn basis at least every 5 turns or so.
Trade Routes - what an opportunity missed! I have oranges, the Maya don't so I'll build a trade unit, load it up with oranges, take a warrior along as an escort and head for the Mayan capital. I get paid for the trip based on simple supply and demand logic. The Maya have silver, who wants silver? Where is my next port of call? Trade units upgrade (carry more, go further/faster, have better refrigeration - less spoilage en-route) - caravan, supply train, lorry, HGV, road-train and boat, coastal freighter, bulk carrier, container ship, Mary Maersk! (For more details see the basic supply/demand logic of RailRoad Tycoon.) We Love The King Days now require you to actually deliver the goods, not just connect them.
TL;DR; FIRST scenarios (one hack-and-slay, one tactical to appeal to all audiences) then new/altered mechanics (preferably fitting into at least one of the scenarios) then Civs to add flavour/variation to the scenarios, then wonders to add sugar to the scenarios.
Viregel
, The Rt. Hon.
Whoward, your points are spot on, and there is so much of that I would love to incorporate into the expansion, should you be happy with that. However, I simply do not have the ability to do that, so I would almost certainly have to rely on other people to do it. Thank you very much for your contribution, and I have checked my plans against that - and they should work with your principals. Thank you very much for your analysis, it is vastly useful to me, and hopefully other as well. 
whoward69
DLL Minion
They weren't (necessarily) meant as a "this lot needs to go in" but more of a "look at what kind of opportunities Firaxis missed to make their mechanics more involving" (rather than just "click-and-wait") - use/reject them as you see fit.
It's your project, and don't forget "one man, one vote" describes both a democracy AND a dictatorship
It's your project, and don't forget "one man, one vote" describes both a democracy AND a dictatorship
OH MY GOD WHAT A MESS.
Well... Firstly, we should decide about the main theme.
Viregel's themes:
Mechanics:
Expanded Exploration.
More alliances and colonialism!
Possibly Third Unique Component as well, need to ask.
Better diplomacy.
And it seems we all agree on that. Awesome ideas.
But WWI... Please Viregel forgive me that but now I am going to frontally attack WWI theme
1) WWI was already covered by Gods and Kings/Brave New World. Shocking? Hey, remember, Gods and Kings introduced Landship, Great War Bomber, Great War Fighter, Machine Gun and Great War Infantry. Also: Steampunk Scenario. Brave New World covers late XIX era, world wars, ideologies, it even has WWI in its intro movie. And... nobody really expected nor really wanted WWI theme Generally speaking, currently it still isn't popular theme for an expansion.
2) So, the game already has WWI units. Well, we can introduce WWI scenario and I support it, I would love to help with it, it can be awesome.
But... Uhm...
What exactly WWI has which can be adopted to this game?
I think other than this scenario there is simply not enough content from WWI to include in Civ. Not enough stuff to make the entire expansion out of WWI. Not enough stuff to justify cancelling certain ideas/civilisations only because of 'WWI theme'
I mean... WWI lasted four years. Civilization game covers 6000 years. We already have WWI units and even now many people think they are not really necessary as soon they are upgraded to WWII units.
We cannot add nitpicky WWI combat formations because this is just to minor compared with the time frame of Civilization game.
Well, we can add chemical weapons and trenches. We can create awesome WWI scenario. That's... all.
And now what? What does First World War, lasting mere 4 years, has what can be translated to Civ5 - game about developing great civilisations over thousands of years?
WWI can't be the main and defining theme for expansion - other Viregel's themes: colonisation, exploration, alliances and so on, of course can be main themes, especially as the middle game (renaissance - industrial era) is the weakest part of Civ5 after BNW. But the Modern Era with world wars IS ALREADY COVERED BY PREVIOUS EXPANSION(s). And people simply aren't interested in WWI in this game. Also you all wanna to make this project look like expansion, right? Now please show me the Civ franchise expansion which is devoted to a single short conflict
Not only that but I will say even more: there is no Civilization expansion pack which is devoted to a HISTORICAL PERIOD. [colonization is a spinoff] All of them are devoted to GAMEPLAY MECHANICS. Gods and Kings were concentrated on early games because of religion. Brave New World was concentrated on late game because players demanded deeper end game. People want exploration/colonisation/middle game/general improvements - and we agree with them, starting from Viregel! So this should be the main theme of this expansion: colonisation, exploration, middle game, clash of cultures. Coincidentally it fits Renaissance - Enlightment - XIX Century - world before 1918 and Ideologies, when colonialism has started declining. WWI is a part of it but it shouldn't define the entire expansion.
...and THIS is why this expansion - if we wanna to focus on exploration/mid game/colonisation - should have rather the XVI century - 1918 theme. I hope I have crushed all arguments supporting the domination of WWI theme
And IMHO one little difference between 'modpack' and 'expansion'... Modpack is a bit more based on the vision of modder, while expansion is a bit more aimed at fullfilling players' demands. Gods and Kings introduced religion and espionage and all these civs because people wanted them. Brave New World introduced end game features because people wanted them.
What I am going to say... IMHO if this project is going to be called expansion it should be based on real Firaxis expansions, right?. These guys didn't say 'hey we have awesome idea let's create an expansion which adds future era - more death robots and futuristic civs!' but were mainly (obviously not only!) basing on players' expectations.
As I said, WWI is simply too short to become the main theme of this expansion. This is absolutely impossible. Also, how many features you can base on this 4 - years long European conflict which can fit 6000 - years Civilization game? Yeach, trenches and gas and?...
CIVILISATONS PROBLEM.
I think the poll would be the best solution.
QUESTION: WHICH CIVILISATONS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN THE NEXT EXPANSION? THEME: EXPLORATION COLONISATION AND MID GAME
And we put 17 - 20 most popular civs and put top7 of them and final two. I like it.
+1
And Zulu! Also Brasil was rather included because players wanted Brasil, not because it is such influential cultural civilisation... Morocco barely fit 'trade route' theme and Indonesia seems to be 'trade civ for BNW' but de facto it doesn't utilise any features of BNW directly
<I am in TPangolin's faction >
Few more ideas
Stupid question but I am not very good at English... What does it mean?
'Colonial' resources like Tobacco, Tea, Cocoa. 'Oriental' resources like Jade, Amber. Personally I would love to include some resources for NORTHERN REGIONS OF THE GLOBE <TPangolin's Inuits would love them>
Exactly. The only whole world scenario I know which managed to solve eternal 'Europe is too small!!!' problem is Earth 2014 and Earth 2014 managed to do that only because of its new balanced buldings/features.
First we need to decide what is the main theme of this expansion
Scenarios - World War I, South America liberation/Indian Scenario/Scramble of Africa Deluxe/Opium Wars?
Well, many people including me greatly prefer this to the hell of micromanaging countlless spies from Civ4
Wait, it seems a lot of people like World Congress...
Although I would definitely expand WC and make it MORE FREQUENT.
Wait, I thought this is the most popular feature of BNW... I have never ever met with something similar toyour line of argumentation
Ok, just please limit the number of spies and make their management bearable
One more idea: Assasins. Killing disliked GREAT PROPHETS (yay!!!), Great Generals, other Great People, maybe also civilisan units like missionaries and workes (yeah unrealistic but this game has already Strategic Archeology )
I am wondering how you can play turn games if you demand EXCITING ACTION whole time
Turn - by turn - actions would become tedious as hell. But generally I agree that World Congress is wonderful idea and should be more frequent/more engaging.
Just please don't make it logistic hell
Viregel's Civs Choices
Italy - I agree, especially as long it has 'cultural powerhouse' theme.
Afghanistan - not sure...
Hungary - very popular and missing civ. But wait, if even the creator of this whole project wants to have Hungary and Mexico Afghanistan in it - these countries have almost nothnin in common with World War I! What's the logic behind it other than 'these are my favourite civs'? Don't get me wrong Viregel, I like most of your ideas and I love your enthusiasm towards this project, I just wanted to express my opinion
Belgium - Belgium is NOT economical powerhouse. It had absolutely no meaning during both WWI and WWII. It was not powerhouse. It was not 'empire'. It is tiny, young, rich nation which managed to get Kongo because of very good diplomacy. That's all. Why Belgium above much more important and interesting civs? Hey Viregel, Canada was much more important during WWI/WWII than Belgium and it is much more popular!
Finland and Israel only had absolutely no impact on WWI. They don't fit 'theme' at all. Viregel wants them because these are his favourite civilisations and I understand that
but I don't think there are very deep reasons behind adding them...
EDIT
Of course if you Viregel really want to create WWI expansion I am not going to stop you and wish you good luck - and I would love to help - just I am expressing my opinion
Well... Firstly, we should decide about the main theme.
Viregel's themes:
Mechanics:
Expanded Exploration.
More alliances and colonialism!
Possibly Third Unique Component as well, need to ask.
Better diplomacy.
And it seems we all agree on that. Awesome ideas.
But WWI... Please Viregel forgive me that but now I am going to frontally attack WWI theme
1) WWI was already covered by Gods and Kings/Brave New World. Shocking? Hey, remember, Gods and Kings introduced Landship, Great War Bomber, Great War Fighter, Machine Gun and Great War Infantry. Also: Steampunk Scenario. Brave New World covers late XIX era, world wars, ideologies, it even has WWI in its intro movie. And... nobody really expected nor really wanted WWI theme
Generally speaking, currently it still isn't popular theme for an expansion.2) So, the game already has WWI units. Well, we can introduce WWI scenario and I support it, I would love to help with it, it can be awesome.
But... Uhm...
What exactly WWI has which can be adopted to this game?
I think other than this scenario there is simply not enough content from WWI to include in Civ. Not enough stuff to make the entire expansion out of WWI. Not enough stuff to justify cancelling certain ideas/civilisations only because of 'WWI theme'
I mean... WWI lasted four years. Civilization game covers 6000 years. We already have WWI units and even now many people think they are not really necessary as soon they are upgraded to WWII units.
We cannot add nitpicky WWI combat formations because this is just to minor compared with the time frame of Civilization game.
Well, we can add chemical weapons and trenches. We can create awesome WWI scenario. That's... all.
And now what? What does First World War, lasting mere 4 years, has what can be translated to Civ5 - game about developing great civilisations over thousands of years?
WWI can't be the main and defining theme for expansion - other Viregel's themes: colonisation, exploration, alliances and so on, of course can be main themes, especially as the middle game (renaissance - industrial era) is the weakest part of Civ5 after BNW. But the Modern Era with world wars IS ALREADY COVERED BY PREVIOUS EXPANSION(s). And people simply aren't interested in WWI in this game. Also you all wanna to make this project look like expansion, right? Now please show me the Civ franchise expansion which is devoted to a single short conflict
Not only that but I will say even more: there is no Civilization expansion pack which is devoted to a HISTORICAL PERIOD. [colonization is a spinoff] All of them are devoted to GAMEPLAY MECHANICS. Gods and Kings were concentrated on early games because of religion. Brave New World was concentrated on late game because players demanded deeper end game. People want exploration/colonisation/middle game/general improvements - and we agree with them, starting from Viregel! So this should be the main theme of this expansion: colonisation, exploration, middle game, clash of cultures. Coincidentally it fits Renaissance - Enlightment - XIX Century - world before 1918 and Ideologies, when colonialism has started declining. WWI is a part of it but it shouldn't define the entire expansion.
...and THIS is why this expansion - if we wanna to focus on exploration/mid game/colonisation - should have rather the XVI century - 1918 theme. I hope I have crushed all arguments supporting the domination of WWI theme
And IMHO one little difference between 'modpack' and 'expansion'... Modpack is a bit more based on the vision of modder, while expansion is a bit more aimed at fullfilling players' demands. Gods and Kings introduced religion and espionage and all these civs because people wanted them. Brave New World introduced end game features because people wanted them.
What I am going to say... IMHO if this project is going to be called expansion it should be based on real Firaxis expansions, right?. These guys didn't say 'hey we have awesome idea let's create an expansion which adds future era - more death robots and futuristic civs!' but were mainly (obviously not only!) basing on players' expectations.
As I said, WWI is simply too short to become the main theme of this expansion. This is absolutely impossible. Also, how many features you can base on this 4 - years long European conflict which can fit 6000 - years Civilization game? Yeach, trenches and gas and?...
CIVILISATONS PROBLEM.
I think the poll would be the best solution.
QUESTION: WHICH CIVILISATONS WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE IN THE NEXT EXPANSION? THEME: EXPLORATION COLONISATION AND MID GAME
And we put 17 - 20 most popular civs and put top7 of them and final two. I like it.
+1
And Zulu! Also Brasil was rather included because players wanted Brasil, not because it is such influential cultural civilisation... Morocco barely fit 'trade route' theme and Indonesia seems to be 'trade civ for BNW' but de facto it doesn't utilise any features of BNW directly
<I am in TPangolin's faction
>Few more ideas
Spoiler :
I'm just going to monopolise on this
Stupid question but I am not very good at English... What does it mean?
'Colonial' resources like Tobacco, Tea, Cocoa. 'Oriental' resources like Jade, Amber. Personally I would love to include some resources for NORTHERN REGIONS OF THE GLOBE
<TPangolin's Inuits would love them>Exactly. The only whole world scenario I know which managed to solve eternal 'Europe is too small!!!' problem is Earth 2014 and Earth 2014 managed to do that only because of its new balanced buldings/features.
First we need to decide what is the main theme of this expansion
Scenarios - World War I, South America liberation/Indian Scenario/Scramble of Africa Deluxe/Opium Wars?
Well, many people including me greatly prefer this to the hell of micromanaging countlless spies from Civ4
Wait, it seems a lot of people like World Congress...
Although I would definitely expand WC and make it MORE FREQUENT.
Wait, I thought this is the most popular feature of BNW... I have never ever met with something similar toyour line of argumentation
Ok, just please limit the number of spies and make their management bearable
One more idea: Assasins. Killing disliked GREAT PROPHETS (yay!!!), Great Generals, other Great People, maybe also civilisan units like missionaries and workes (yeah unrealistic but this game has already Strategic Archeology
)I am wondering how you can play turn games if you demand EXCITING ACTION whole time
Turn - by turn - actions would become tedious as hell. But generally I agree that World Congress is wonderful idea and should be more frequent/more engaging.Just please don't make it logistic hell
Viregel's Civs Choices
Italy - I agree, especially as long it has 'cultural powerhouse' theme.
Afghanistan - not sure...
Hungary - very popular and missing civ. But wait, if even the creator of this whole project wants to have Hungary and Mexico Afghanistan in it - these countries have almost nothnin in common with World War I! What's the logic behind it other than 'these are my favourite civs'? Don't get me wrong Viregel, I like most of your ideas and I love your enthusiasm towards this project, I just wanted to express my opinion
Belgium - Belgium is NOT economical powerhouse. It had absolutely no meaning during both WWI and WWII. It was not powerhouse. It was not 'empire'. It is tiny, young, rich nation which managed to get Kongo because of very good diplomacy. That's all. Why Belgium above much more important and interesting civs? Hey Viregel, Canada was much more important during WWI/WWII than Belgium and it is much more popular!
Finland and Israel only had absolutely no impact on WWI. They don't fit 'theme' at all. Viregel wants them because these are his favourite civilisations and I understand that
but I don't think there are very deep reasons behind adding them... EDIT
Of course if you Viregel really want to create WWI expansion I am not going to stop you and wish you good luck - and I would love to help - just I am expressing my opinion
Viregel
, The Rt. Hon.
OK, bit of rebuttal:
Firstly, the expansion focuses on the First World War, but that doesn't mean that it is everything. In actual fact, it focuses more on the run-up to World War One - alliances, colonialism, and exploration. Furthermore, on the First World War itself - yes, it lasted four years. Does that make it any less significant? No. It completely changed the geopolitical face of the world, especially in Europe. The war changed the way we perceive war today - beforehand, it was treated by quite a lot of people as "a bit of fun", but afterwards, almost nobody supported the idea of more war. So, WWI focus? Justified. It's not just on the war remember - it focuses more on the events before, which neither expansion explored in great detail.
Onto the civs: I think that all are justified. Afghanistan is a fairly brutal reminder of wars continuing today. Belgium, to me at least, is Industrial Era Europe in a nutshell. And Canada more important? As much as I like Canada, the Invasion of Belgium sparked both World Wars for Britain, which at the time, was undoubtedly one of the most important, if not the most important empire on the world's stage. Yes, it is a small country, but the fact that they were able to advance to the level as their neighbours is remarkable. Hungary, while not directly related to WWI, is still both popular and much needed, and it would annoy me to no end that the other half of Austria-Hungary (in the scenario) was missing from the game. As for Israel, it helps get further geographic diversity. The period in which it exists may not be the same period that I am doing here, but it is still highly important because of its location and foundation. Finland also has a similar case; however, this time it became independent during the First World War, and as a direct result of it.
To conclude: these civs are not my favourites. Instead, they are ones that I firmly believe would work. They are made for the purposes of the expansion, and I like the general feel; some are modern, some are ancient, and others are a mix of both. Although I still like what I have chosen, I am still not convinced that I should change it. The First World War was just so important that it cannot be simply left out from civ. It shaped the way we think, the way the world is today, and every political event since 1914 has been a direct result of the war. So, while I may change the civs, I am not changing the focus. The entire expansion has been built around it, and I don't want to start again from scratch.
Firstly, the expansion focuses on the First World War, but that doesn't mean that it is everything. In actual fact, it focuses more on the run-up to World War One - alliances, colonialism, and exploration. Furthermore, on the First World War itself - yes, it lasted four years. Does that make it any less significant? No. It completely changed the geopolitical face of the world, especially in Europe. The war changed the way we perceive war today - beforehand, it was treated by quite a lot of people as "a bit of fun", but afterwards, almost nobody supported the idea of more war. So, WWI focus? Justified. It's not just on the war remember - it focuses more on the events before, which neither expansion explored in great detail.
Onto the civs: I think that all are justified. Afghanistan is a fairly brutal reminder of wars continuing today. Belgium, to me at least, is Industrial Era Europe in a nutshell. And Canada more important? As much as I like Canada, the Invasion of Belgium sparked both World Wars for Britain, which at the time, was undoubtedly one of the most important, if not the most important empire on the world's stage. Yes, it is a small country, but the fact that they were able to advance to the level as their neighbours is remarkable. Hungary, while not directly related to WWI, is still both popular and much needed, and it would annoy me to no end that the other half of Austria-Hungary (in the scenario) was missing from the game. As for Israel, it helps get further geographic diversity. The period in which it exists may not be the same period that I am doing here, but it is still highly important because of its location and foundation. Finland also has a similar case; however, this time it became independent during the First World War, and as a direct result of it.
To conclude: these civs are not my favourites. Instead, they are ones that I firmly believe would work. They are made for the purposes of the expansion, and I like the general feel; some are modern, some are ancient, and others are a mix of both. Although I still like what I have chosen, I am still not convinced that I should change it. The First World War was just so important that it cannot be simply left out from civ. It shaped the way we think, the way the world is today, and every political event since 1914 has been a direct result of the war. So, while I may change the civs, I am not changing the focus. The entire expansion has been built around it, and I don't want to start again from scratch.
Hypereon
He was a Consul of Rome!
So we would need someone to do the 3d model for the Sauna UI. A cottage with steam rising, a backyard and a small pier would do.
Some reference here.
Some reference here.
Spoiler :
senshidenshi
Switched the Red and Blue channels
The survey isn't very helpful at this point, probably because:
- Mughals and Tibet are tied (for second)
- Boers and Mexico are tied (for second)
- Nazca and Sioux are tied (for second)
- Mali and Kongo are tied
AW Arcaeca
Deus Vult
By the way, have we gotten any closer to being able to make canals in-game with DLL modding? It's been a long-awaited addition to the game...
It sounds like a good idea, and I brought it up because
It sounds like a good idea, and I brought it up because
if this expansion doesn't have canals, I don't even want it
whoward69
DLL Minion
Can't be done in Lua only. The DLL runs a check at the end of every players turn and returns incorrectly located units to the correct domain. So even if you use Lua to put a ship on land, at the end of the player's turn the DLL will helpfully relocate it to the nearest city (note, NOT the nearest body of water) - this is how you can end up with ships in cities in the middle of land masses (if the ship took a coastal city which was then razed while the ship was healing in port). It's also the same code that will jump un-embarked units on water back to land.
AW Arcaeca
Deus Vult
Now - and this is coming from someone who understands next to nothing about C++ - but theoretically couldn't that be solved by specifying a condition that ships can only go through canals if their number of moves doesn't cause them to end their turn on one? That is, much the same way you can't move warrior A onto the same tile as warrior B, but on flat terrain Warrior A can, in a way, pass through Warrior B, to the tile just beyond?
I also think canals should only be able to be built on one-hex-wide isthmuses by GEs, but that doesn't sound like it's the problem.
whoward69
DLL Minion
You still have the huge problem of re-writing large chunks of the C++ path-finding code into Lua ... and it would only work for players, not the AI ... unless you were also going to take control of all ship movement decisions of the AI ... and that'll be a massive performance hit per turn.
Can't be practically done in Lua only.
LastSword
Prince
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 1,129
JFD
Kathigitarkh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niedermayer-Hentig_Expedition - Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary_in_World_War_I - Hungary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram - Mexico.
This is not almost nothing. These states could have easily changed the course of the war, one way or another. You can say the same for many of Viregel's proposals.
Granted, not Israel, though. Israel didn't exist yet.
Kerfuffle
King of the Whale Sharks
janboruta
Artistriarch
Or has been non-existent for almost two millennia, depends on the viewpoint.
Though one could argue that the British mandate in Palestine was the base for the post-WW2 state of Israel. Even without that, its inclusion in the pack doesn't really bother me - it doesn't fit the theme as much as Poland doesn't fit the theme of BNW, but is still one of the most requested civs out there. And it has the Kibbutz UI, which is a 19-th cenutry invention that saw major development in the 20th.
Besides, I will be willing to help on any art (icons, maps) that will be needed. Leaderscreens - I'm not sure yet, depends on my time. I know it is rather limited in my case, and I am already committing a lot of my resources to some other new mods and civs. Some new art might overlap with ideas proposed in this expansion, so could be used without any trouble or re-purposed at the very least. Viregel, let me know when you'll have a list of missing art or something.
JFD
Kathigitarkh
Um, yeah it does. Great Works.
And, of course, Viregel is free to use any of my civs and components that are pertinent, including ones still in development.
Viregel
, The Rt. Hon.
To further argue Israel's inclusion, I'd say it plays the role of Assyria in BNW - it puts a more definite line between the new and the old. I could change it out (it's probably the one I'm least sure about) but I think it does seem strangely fitting. Any other civs that would fit the theme?
JFD
Kathigitarkh
The only other one that I can think of is Prussia.
