Nice to hear youre working on RFC for Civ5, I've been waiting for this news since the release.
I was wondering if you're going to use the same civ-colours as in Civ4 or are you going to keep vanilla Civ5 civ-colours? The screenshots on the official website look very nice as well, I'll keep my fingers crossed for you!
On a side note, will you keep dynamic civ names or are you leaving them out this time?
I'd like to know the reasoning for the removal of the Iroquois. I'm pretty sure its for Colonization purposes, but they were important during the time period. They, unlike the Incas or the Aztecs, weren't destroyed within first contact, and helped the English superiority throughout the region in the 7 Years War.
Also, going with CladInShadows said, Iroquois did not call themselves the Iroquois. That is French version of either what the Hurons or Algonquins called them (irinakhoiw, or Black Snakes for the Huron; Hirokoa, or Killer People for the Algonquins). This was due to the French traders allying themselves with said Hurons and Algonquins against them. They called themselves Haudenosaunee.
I'd like to know the reasoning for the removal of the Iroquois. I'm pretty sure its for Colonization purposes, but they were important during the time period. They, unlike the Incas or the Aztecs, weren't destroyed within first contact, and helped the English superiority throughout the region in the 7 Years War.
Also, going with CladInShadows said, Iroquois did not call themselves the Iroquois. That is French version of either what the Hurons or Algonquins called them (irinakhoiw, or Black Snakes for the Huron; Hirokoa, or Killer People for the Algonquins). This was due to the French traders allying themselves with said Hurons and Algonquins against them. They called themselves Haudenosaunee.
I think they'll be represented good enough by randomly spawning barbarian/native/independent Mohawk Warriors, like in civ 4's RFC, 'cause they didn't really have cities afaik. It would be cool if they came on horses after the horses would spawn in North America. And maybe equip them with guns after enough European contact.
Hmm, just realized that I wasn't running the latest version of RFC. Downloaded it and noticed that as the Aztecs my civ name is showing up on the scoreboard as 'The Mexica peoples'. Guess you were a step ahead of me Rhye
I have to agree with Omega124. Keeping the Iroquois would not only make the conquest and colonization of North-America more challenging, if they survive they could function as a sort of Canada and make things for America more challenging.
On a side note, whats that settlement in Louisiana on the second screenshot?
The point of RFC is that, unlike vanilla civ, it values historical accuracy as well as gameplay. There weren't any cities north of Mexico before the Europeans arrived.
The point of RFC is that, unlike vanilla civ, it values historical accuracy as well as gameplay. There weren't any cities north of Mexico before the Europeans arrived.
Yes, yes, but putting the Mohawk Warriors as natives and leaving it at that is not also accurate. They had a long-standing alliance with the British, and were one of the many different reasons of British superiority in the region. Also, we all know the historical inaccuracy of a Jewish/Muslim Europe, which happens frequently in the 3000BC scenerio.
Been a big fan and close follower and civ and rhye's for years. I finally decided to register into civfanatics so I can offer my help.
I offer to do the Aztecs. Also, I noticed a few Spanish cities in Latin America ended up a couple tiles off of their real location after converting them from Civ4. I'm also willing to revise these.
The point of RFC is that, unlike vanilla civ, it values historical accuracy as well as gameplay. There weren't any cities north of Mexico before the Europeans arrived.
You've got that backwards, but its understandable, as the scholarship on the issue has been quite shoddy and ethnocentric for decades. That's changed recently though and we know more now about "pre-Columbian" populations than before.
Spoilerclick to read an explanation of why we tend to underestimate native populations :
There weren't any major native cities north of Mexico after the Europeansor, more accurately, their diseases and culturesarrived. The diseases rapidly affected native population centers, and significant numbers among the Europeans did not seem to mind this. On June 24, 1763, William Trent, a trader and militia commander at the besieged Fort Pitt, wrote, "Out of our regard for them [sc. representatives of the besieging Delawares], we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect." In his defense, the natives in question did not seem particularly intent on his survival.
Natural spread of disease, assisted by the vagaries of war and perhaps also by individuals like Mr. Trent, was of course aided by contact with a foreign and (relatively) technology-saturated culture. Imagine for a moment all of the movies, films, comics, and TV shows that use alien contact or invasion of Earth as a plot device. Now recall the cultural and social changes that contact entailed. In ID4, entire cities were vaporized or evacuated. Star Trek's a little more optimistic, but the Prime Directive is there to prevent cultural collapse of non-spacefaring civilizationssomething that nonetheless seems to happen at least once every season. The Jawas in Star Wars are a great example of a culture become dependent on scavenging the technology of others. Ever wonder what they did before Tatooine was settled by people who allowed their prissy, golden translator droids to wander around unattended?
I jest a bit with the SF references, but it does make the point. Gunpowder, germs, and steel (to quote a Jared Diamond book title) had culture-shattering implications for societies and nations that received them almost overnight. Most Native cultures had yet to look seriously at iron as a resource when steel swords and iron cannon were thrust at (and through) them. Lets also not forget that horses are not native to the Americas either. Their introduction and (re-)domestication changed Plains culture quite rapidly as well. With all of that going on, plus major epidemics, its no wonder Native population centers evaporated upon contact with Europe.
This emptying of the land was as much a surprise to the Europeans as to the natives, given the vastly different experiences of the colonial powers in both Asia and Africa. That's likely one of the chief reasons we like to assume North America was sparsely populated when Europeans arrived. The other is that, with few exceptions, Native population centers North of Mexico were not built with stone or other more permanent materials.
Forgive my lengthy preamble, but I believe all of that information is necessary to understand the lamentable state of history in regards to what really happened in North America. There are actually many examples of cities north of Mexico that pre-date European Contact. In addition, and given the native population concentrations in North America prior to the introduction of diseases for which they had no immunity, it is nearly certain there were other permanent or semi-permanent settlements that we have yet to discover. Simply because many cultures were hunting- or gathering-focused and/or nomadic in nature does not rule out the possibilities of "cities." That said, most urban centers were of "Three Sisters" cultures, even though the cultivation of maize, beans, and squash is more akin to Euro-style agriculture than either hunting or gathering.
As an example, the large earthen structures of Cahokia, near modern-day St. Louis, were the apparent center of a rather advanced pre-Columbian civilization. The urban center spread out across more than six square miles, possibly housed (at its peak) as many as 40,000 residents, had suburbs, and in the 1250 was more populous than London was in that same year. It also possessed evidence of advanced scientific knowledge, including a henge-like structure of wood that was rebuilt several times over 300 years and served as a sort of celestial calendar. To put those 40,000 residents in some historical perspective, in 1790, New York City only had a population of just over 33,000. Philadelphia's was around 50,000.
Another example would be Ganondagan, a site where "thousands" of Senecans (the English name for one of the Iroquois tribes) lived. It was a "major 17th century town" with a palisaded granary, according to the New York State Historical Society. It also is revered as the burial place for the Great Mother of Nations, a woman who helped The Great Peacemaker Deganawida and his friend and speaker, Hiawatha, to finally unite the Five Nations.
A final solid example is the Anasazi of the American Southwest. (Yes, I realize that technically, this area would be considered Mexico prior to the 1850s, but so was Northern California, and there's not a lot of the US that is north of that line.) The ruins of their cliff dwellings and cities dot the region. Acoma Pueblo had a population of approximately 2000 prior to a Spanish assault, but after the initial collapse of the Anasazi agricultural system. This site was established in the 1100s, and remains one of the oldest continually inhabited places in the US. Of course, it's not as well known as the ruins of Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde, Casa Grande, or the Gila Cliff Dwellings. Mesa Verde and Chaco Canyon each probably reached peak populations of at least 5,000. The population of Paris was about 3,000 at around the same time. Many of the buildings in these ruins are oriented along specific lines that match with solstices, equinoxes and other significant celestial markers.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
As an example, the large earthen structures of Cahokia, near modern-day St. Louis, were the apparent center of a rather advanced pre-Columbian civilization. The urban center spread out across more than six square miles, possibly housed (at its peak) as many as 40,000 residents, had suburbs, and in the 1250 was more populous than London was in that same year. It also possessed evidence of advanced scientific knowledge, including a henge-like structure of wood that was rebuilt several times over 300 years and served as a sort of celestial calendar. To put those 40,000 residents in some historical perspective, in 1790, New York City only had a population of just over 33,000. Philadelphia's was around 50,000.
