1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Revised Mongols, Jurchens, and Other Civs

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by LikeNothing, Jun 1, 2018.

Tags:
  1. LikeNothing

    LikeNothing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2016
    Messages:
    48
    Made possible by the new, larger map, and inspired by the new Turkic Civ and the Mughal Civ.

    Note: Owing to the discontinuous historical records of these Civs, they would significantly benefit from Leoreth's proposed Civ rebirth and respawn mechanisms.

    New Promotion: Raider
    Double :gold: gain from pillaging, pillaging costs no Movement. Available to Mounted Units. Requires Disengage I.

    Mongol Civ Revised

    1. New Spawn Date: 155 AD, as Xianbei
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xianbei

    Respawn: 696 AD, as Khitan

    Respawn: 1130 AD, as Khamag Mongol

    2. New UP: The Power of Nomad Confederation
    New Mounted Units receive extra movement (2~4, random) and free Promotions (Raider, plus one random among Desert Adaptation, March, Morale, Leadership, and Tactics).
    Old Mongol UP either removed or absorbed as an effect of Keshik.

    3. UU Adjustment: Keshik: Reduced Cost; replaces Pistolier (so that it can be used alongside Lancer), upgrades to Hussar or Dragoon.

    4. UB Adjustment: Ger: Instead of extra XP to Mounted Units, +25% Production of Mounted Units.

    5. Core Adjustment: Initial Mongol Core is small, but expands later.

    6. New First UHV:
    The Northern Dynasties: Control China's Core for 300 continuous years before the rise of the next Steppe Empire (Turks in 3000 BC scenario, Jurchens in 600 AD scenario).

    New Civ: Jurchens

    1. Spawn Date: 1110 AD

    Respawn: 1593 AD

    2. UP: The Power of Assimilation
    Conquered cities gain extra :culture:, :science:, and :espionage: (amount based on the cities' prior :culture:).

    3. UU: Banner: Replaces Cuirassier, receives Defensive Bonuses, 25% Withdrawal Chance, starts with March.

    4. UB: Lifan Yuan: Replaces Customs House. Does not require Coast or Harbor. No Foreign :traderoute: bonus. Instead, 20% bonus Yield to Domestic :traderoute:, and +1 :) per Vassal.

    5. UHVs:
    The Jin Dynasty: Control China and Mongolia by 1200 AD
    The Manchu Alphabet: Be more advanced than all Civs known to you in 1650 AD
    The Prosperous Age: Have 1/3 of the World's Population in 1800 AD
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2018
    need my speed likes this.
  2. LikeNothing

    LikeNothing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2016
    Messages:
    48
    [Reserved]
     
  3. TJDowling

    TJDowling King

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    655
    All for increasing the diversity of civilizations in the Far East but do the Mongol goals remain the same if the Jurchen goal is to control China and Mongolia by 1200AD? I guess the Mongol UHV is 1300AD anyway. How do you simulate the massive and sudden Mongol invasion if they start nearly a millenium earlier?
     
    LikeNothing likes this.
  4. BarbarianX

    BarbarianX Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2013
    Messages:
    54
    As a player, you would have time to prepare. The AI can receive Conquerors.
     
  5. merijn_v1

    merijn_v1 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,758
    Location:
    The city of the original vlaai
    The challenge of the conquer UHV is that you have to do it rapidly. If you give the player this much time to prepare, the whole challenge it gone.
     
  6. LikeNothing

    LikeNothing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2016
    Messages:
    48
    I 100% agree with this Re: conquer UHVs, but at the same time I like Civs which are as a whole interesting to play for a longer time. The new Turkic Civ does both, unlike the old Mongol Civ which I think begins and ends too quickly to be interesting for replaying. That is one of the motives for this idea.

    The Xianbei conquered China's core in the 4th century.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xianbei#Early_state_formation:_Sixteen_Kingdoms_and_the_Northern_Wei

    This could be a new UHV for Mongols. Updating OP.
     
    Last edited: Jun 2, 2018
  7. soul-breathing

    soul-breathing King

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    985
    Location:
    Hangzhou,China PR
    Actually Xianbei doesn't have such a closed relation with Mongol. In 5th Century Xianbei had enter the midland of China, and adopt Chinese culture and civics, also advanced in techs. But then when they are defeated back to the steppe, they turned back to nomad. How to display this slipping process in game?
     
    black213 likes this.
  8. TJDowling

    TJDowling King

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    655
    Actually it seems to me that the conquer goal would be not too easy but impossible. The thing that makes it possible in the current scenario is that you get a massive stack in the beginning and then you can immediately begin production to fill in losses. The economic strain of having a massive army is not immediately felt because the conquering/pillaging gold keeps coming in and by the time you are overextended by empire and unit cost the game is pretty much over. I feel it would be economically impossible to sustain the military production necessary over the long term to build a conquering army as the Mongols if you started earlier without the conquerors. At least while developing the techs necessary to actually build that army.
     
  9. EdmundIronside

    EdmundIronside Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2017
    Messages:
    414
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI.
    Are you planning to create/modify these new civs LikeNothing, or are they proposals for the likes of Leoreth and Merijn to create?
     
  10. HighFunctioningAlcoholic

    HighFunctioningAlcoholic Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2018
    Messages:
    91
    I'm aware that there's less ethno-linguistic connection with what we know as the Mongols, but why not throw in Xiognu in 200 BC, which was much more a threat to China than the Xianbei. Maybe throw in a couple Mulan references, since that's the era the movie would have occurred in.

    But I contributing zero to this effort, so you do you.
     
  11. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    This is an interesting concept, but I also think that it's fine if different civs have different experiences, actually I think that's even the strength of this mod. In this case the Mongols would be all about conquering an empire under severe time constraints, while e.g. the Turks have more time for their conquests but instead need to balance them with other competing goals. However consider that both the Turkic and Mongol conquest goals are front loaded to create a sense of time pressure, doing it another way would give too much time to gradually conquer your goals which would be too far from the desired experience. It's just that the other Mongol goals are also quite focused on a limited time period while the Turks have follow up goals.
     
    1SDAN and borhap88 like this.
  12. LikeNothing

    LikeNothing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2016
    Messages:
    48
    Xianbei conquered northern China, whereas Xiongnu never did, was defeated and driven west. Xianbei also has a stronger, clearer connection to modern Mongols. Xiongnu is more romanticized because it is earlier, and the writers of history (here, China) were more victorious against them.

    A new collapse/respawn system perhaps? Xianbei's linguistic connection to Mongols is less disputed, unlike say Xiongnu's. I think the artistic license here is comparable to the Turkic (Göktürks and Seljuks as the same) and Mughal (Delhi and Mughal as the same) Civs.

    I used to think this with even greater conviction, but playing the Turkic Civ made me realize this is just another way in which DoC has surpassed vanilla RFC.

    There is no reason why a conquering Civ with a time constrained goal cannot have other, more long-lasting goals. Having other goals allow for more different experiences, rather than less: the player is free to play a rushing style, for which the turn time and score (record-breaking) provide plenty of incentives (think WC contests in SoI, for example), but the player is also free to re-play the same Civ exploring diverse alternatives.

    Because of how unique and interesting Civs are in DoC due to the very distinct UPs (Turks and Mongols are prime examples) as well as mostly static Cores, the different Civs are not substitutes to each other (unlike say, EU4's National Ideas). The player wondering "what would happen if the Mongols decided to consolidate over a longer time period" cannot seek to play the Turks or Arabs for a similar experience. Unless a severe form of historical determinism is assumed (e.g. "the Mongols could never have consolidated over a longer time period"), I see every reason to allow the players to explore such alternative experiences.

    I suspect Rhye's original decision to limit many UHVs to short time spans (such as Babylon) was at least partly a pragmatic choice to limit the number of simultaneously alive Civs, to reduce performance costs. I am all for limiting the number of simultaneously alive Civs, but I think it'd be more interesting if somewhat different sets of Civs can survive for extended periods of time in different games.

    Sadly, I won't have much free time after this September. I'm just sketching as many ideas as I can.
     
    TJDowling likes this.
  13. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    I'm not sure what you're arguing for here. The ability to play a civ beyond their historically determined UHV deadlines? If so, how does that related to an earlier spawn date?
     
    TJDowling likes this.
  14. LikeNothing

    LikeNothing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2016
    Messages:
    48
    The option to play over a longer time span, which allows for more diverse games.

    Time constraints are highly asymmetric in this game: a player can always play past UHV deadlines, but there is no way they can play earlier than their spawn date. Thus IMHO spawn dates should err on the side of being early, rather than late, especially for Civs with historical basis for earlier spawns. That is a reason why (as I understand) the Turks spawn as Göktürks rather than Seljuks (despite the connection between them being more tenuous than that between the Seljuks and Ottomans), and why Mughals spawn as Delhi (even though in our reality, the Mughals and Delhi were mortal enemies).
     
  15. Steb

    Steb King

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    765
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Montréal
    I tend to agree with you that it's more fun for civilizations to spawn early rather than late—in general. However, the Mongols are currently one of the most fun and unique civs in the game. Making their spawn early would turn them into a more generic empire-building civ and reduce the diversity of experiences.

    I encourage you to modmod your idea though. I find that to be the best way to resolve arguments of this kind ;)
     
  16. Hightower

    Hightower Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Messages:
    514
    Location:
    Jersey City
    One suggestion on the Mongol UP:

    The Power of Nomads: +2 movement for all units as long as you have the lowest population density of all civilizations [population divided by tiles controlled].

    This incentivizes the Mongols to conquer quickly and also ends their conquering spree as they settle down and start expanding vertically. Might need some testing to determine how well it works. Don't think population density is something that any other civilization currently takes into consideration (perhaps it should be part of the India or Indonesia UHV, though).
     
    Jarlaxe Baenre likes this.
  17. JHLee

    JHLee Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    472
    I like the idea of Jurchens more than adding respawns (or pre-spawns) to Mongols.
    The Jurchens were a constant threat to the Chinese and Koreans from at least 10c and on.
    Also they could be used to represent Jin and Qing.
    I have always thought that Qing, the Nation where the Han were considered 2nd class to Manchurians
    and Hongwu, the Manchurian Khagan being a part of the Chinese(=of the Han people) civ in RFC DoC a bit ahistorical.
     
    LikeNothing likes this.
  18. LikeNothing

    LikeNothing Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2016
    Messages:
    48
    I agree that Jurchens would substantially improve historicity and gameplay in East Asia. They had much interactions and conflicts with Korea too, which is a reason their spawn can be argued to be even earlier with the Balhae.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balhae

    But a 1110 AD Jurchen spawn is amply justified, as the Jin and Qing are considered "Conquest Dynasties" of similar legitimacy if somewhat differing success.

    PS I think by Manchurian Khagan you mean Kangxi, not Hongwu. Hongwu is the Han Chinese leader that overthrew the Mongols and founded the Ming Dynasty. The fact that they are so confusable highlights the problem of Jurchen absence in DoC. Kangxi being a leader of China is comparable to Kublai being a leader of China, Akbar being a leader of India, or Cnut being a leader of England. I think DoC has achieved sufficiently detailed realism to avoid such confusions.
     
  19. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,885
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    To be fair, they are confusable because Kangxi is represented by the Hongwu leaderhead in the 1700 AD scenario.
     
  20. JHLee

    JHLee Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    472
    Oh yeah... I meant Kangxi.
    :lol:
     

Share This Page