Remove Maya?

[musicfreak]

Personally, I think Maya should be removed from the game for a number of reasons. Because of the whole speed issue, we need as few civs as possible, and removing one from the game would obviously speed it up. The reason I picked Maya is because they are pretty much useless. They usually get taken over quickly, either by the Aztecs or Europeans. And they aren't even available in the 600 AD start. They also didn't really play a big role in history. The Aztecs and Incas at least put up a fight against the Spanish, the Mayans basically just died.

I think in their place, Chichen Itza should be auto-settled as a Native city like in the 600 AD start. This could potentially give a chance to put in another civ if Rhye wants, but I don't think any more should be added. I'd rather have a speed boost than a new civ.

Discuss?

 

[Úmarth]

Like you just said, Maya is pretty much always dead before the Europeans get there so it isn't really going to have any effect on the speed of the late game (which is where there are problems). As for its effect on history, that depends what you mean. We may not see its influence in the modern world, but that's because of the effects of European colonisation. But the Mayan civilisation is one of only a handful to independently develop writing, and they had a uniquely well-developed urban society in Mesoamerica. They certainly exerted a great influence over later cultures in the region, including the Aztecs. I don't really know what you mean with the Spanish thing... the Aztec and Inca were completely subjugated in a matter of years while it took the Spanish 170 years to completely control the Yucatán peninsula.

I don't think any civs should be removed. But I do think maybe the game could be sped up in the late game by making it more likely that Mali and Ethiopia collapse.

 

[SadoMacho]

Agree a bit on the Maya. Not important at all for gameplay. They only give the Aztecs the change of getting some cities, and that's why I don't agree fully. But, there in so, keep it this way (Rhye won't be allowed to remove them anyway.)

On the Ethiopian subject:
They should be in more of the time. Ethiopia was the only African nation that wasnt' colonized during the colonial age (Italy conquered it for a short while during WWII). The Portuguese tried to contact it to form an alliance agianst the Muslims (Ethiopia was a legendry christain land in those day) and that's wat made them sail Africa starting the colonial age in Europe. A palyable start for Ethiopia in 600AD game should even be reconcidered (UHV problem?) or at least an AI-controlled start in around 1270 when an Ethiopian Empire was formed. This is also back up with the Ethiopian UU, a musketman, a unit in the mid section of the game, not a ancient unit.

 

[Panopticon]

In 600 AD, isn't Ethiopia already represented by the Aksumite Kingdom's capital?

 

[SadoMacho]

an independent city, yes (without christianity), I'd like to see an AI controlled little empire in 1270AD. It's impossible getting Ethiopian cities unless you conquer them, Aksum can be asked in the Congress.

Before 1270 there was only a small Ethiopian civilization, that could be independent, but it became an empire later on, with it' own distinct culture and it still as influance in the current day world (Rastafari's I think)

 

[musicfreak]

Well the main reason I suggested it isn't because of speed, that's just a bonus. I just think Maya is a pointless civ in the game that does nothing. They are boring to play (or maybe that's just me), and as an AI, they get taken over very quickly. I just figured if they don't do anything, then why have them in the game? There's really no need to remove them, those are just my thoughts.

About Ethiopia and Mali: I disagree about Ethiopia collapsing, SadoMacho's posts explain why. But I do agree that Mali should collapse earlier.

 

[Úmarth]

I think they're quite fun, if you survive and conquer the Aztecs you have an interesting game against the Europeans. Besides, I can think of other civs who don't "do" anything. Egypt, as an AI, toddles along for a while, usually doesn't found a religion, rarely builds wonders and then collapses. India founds a religion or two yes, but usually not much else. Babylon is pretty mich always taken over by Persia quickly, and does nothing. Rarely Babylon takes over Persia, leaving Persia "pointless". Depending on the situation, France or Germany are often completely useless. Russia does very little unless they take out Mongolia, sometimes Germany. Turkey just replaces Arabia usually, so in that sense it's pointless... I could go on. If Rhye had coded just the bare minimum to make a game... well it would just be an Earth map. The basis of RFC is history. The Mayans were historically significant. Thus, the Mayans are in.

 

[Heathcliff]

Don't remove the Maya! It is my favorite civilization to play.

What I like with it are that as you should only have 2 cities in the begging Tikal on the spot and the other 2 tiles to the west and 3 when you take Tenochtitlan from the Aztecs. It's fun to not have so many cities so you can concentrate on them to make them very efficient, which is too boring to do with lots of cities. They are abit like Babylonians to play in that sense.

Also the events are really well made they come after each others.

1. Build Temple of Kukulkan
2. Reserch Calendar
3. Build troops to defend against Dogsoldiers
4. Build Longbowmen and Catapults and move the troops home to Aztecs to arrive and fight them.
5. Move the troops home to fight Hernan Cortez gang.

Abit like China, you have to concentrate to achieve lots of different things.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

If it were only possible to win in Emperor...
I think the 50% research (rather than 40%) discount should be back. Calendar is impossible as of the most current patch.
Maya's actually fun to play if you can build the temple in time and avoid the plague by sending a workboat east to meet the Europeans first.

 

[Úmarth]

How can a workboat cross the ocean?

 

[AnotherPacifist]

No, you send the workboat at the farthest eastern end of the Caribbean Sea, and when the Europeans see your boat (but not your territory), the conqueror event will not happen. You'll still get a plague, but that's better than 7 troops landing next to Tikal. Sometimes you also have to send a land unit up to Nova Scotia because the Portuguese carracks can see farther (and thus may get the conqueror event), but that's only because as Aztecs I had to grab the islands, so as Maya you should be OK if you stay in Central America.

I thought everybody knew this trick? (I couldn't have survived my Maya, Aztec and Inca UHVs without this trick)

 

[Úmarth]

I didn't know. It sounds too much like an exploit for my liking though.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

I didn't know. It sounds too much like an exploit for my liking though.

Nah, I think this is Rhye's way of telling us that history could have been very different if the native American civilizations looked past their petty local rivalries and explored a little more. (Is there even any archaeological evidence there were boats or ships built by the Aztecs or Incans?)

 

[Úmarth]

I don't know if there is. I should think there was some naval trade, fishing, etc. That's pretty much a constant with any coastal settlement.

But still, even if they had explored more extensively what benefit would that have done them? The Mesoamerican and Peruvian civilizations were very much isolated, the rest of the Americas populated with nomadic tribes who offered little in the way of valuable trade. Their crops weren't suited for latitudes too far removed from their own so it would they couldn't colonise North America, and South America was and is mostly jungle. Conquering them militarily would be completely unprofitable too. Navy or no, when the Europeans arrived they would still have better technology, abundant resources back home and most importantly nasty contagious diseases which the Native Americans had never been exposed to before.

 

[ADP101]

i like the mayans, they often build my panama canal, and w/o them i wouldnt have an avatar

 

[AnotherPacifist]

A quote from Wikipedia:

In the Kon-Tiki Expedition, Heyerdahl and five fellow adventurers went to Peru, where they constructed a pae-pae raft from balsa wood and other native materials, a raft that they called the Kon-Tiki. The Kon-Tiki expedition was inspired by old reports and drawings made by the Spanish Conquistadors of Inca rafts, and by native legends and archaeological evidence suggesting contact between South America and Polynesia. After a 101 day, 4,300 mile (7,000 km) journey across the Pacific Ocean, Kon-Tiki smashed into the reef at Raroia in the Tuamotu Islands on August 7, 1947, showing that it was possible that people before the arrival of the Europeans could have accomplished such a journey with relative ease and safety.

So if they did explore more extensively and sailed east rather than west, the Incans would have gotten the plague sooner, and prepared for the Spanish onslaught. If they could reach Polynesia, they could have prevented the Chinese adventurers.