RFC:Antiquity

[kravixon]

Which areas in particular are cramped?

 

[JediClemente]

Hrmm.

Sorry, I don't like the map, not even a bit. Seems too roman-centered and too "without scale".

For starters, it gives a feel of just like the same area from RFC a little bigger. I'd like it to have an acceptable room for Egypt and Mesopotamia (the latter should be home to not one, but at least two civs); which it doesn't provide right now.

Finding a nice map is very, very difficult. And in this case, it'd be better to define first all its constraints. Beginning with the size. Isn't it too small? It's certainly much smaller than the one for RFC.

Should it have the same scale in all the map? Or an upscaled Middle East (in the way of the upscaled Europe in RFC)?

 

[ZachScape]

Well, we should down scale Iberia and Northern Europe for one. And if we want the Indus Valley, we should downscale that too. Land above the Black Sea seems useless to have, too.

 

[kravixon]

JediClem- The map is smaller than the one for RFC, but it's also meant for 12 civs instead of 28. You can found 6-7 good cities in Greece, when in RFC you can fit 3. I think Egypt and Mesopotamia have plenty of room

Zach- I really don't feel 'wasted' space is a big deal, but did you make any progress with your strategy-layer idea?

 

[ZachScape]

No. For weeks my XBox has been infected with the RRoD. I sent it to MicroSoft, but they sent it back, so I finally fixed it myself yesterday. I have been, however, trying to come up with the best possible dimensions for the map. I will give updates as I go along. (I'll try to edit one post as I make changes)
'Wasted space' isn't IMO a big deal because lag or anything, I would just like to see Civilization spread to the Four Corners of the Earth.

 

[ZachScape]

I'm going to frequently edit this post to show updates.

Initial Post- Reference Map
Edit 1-

Here is the idea I had for the map.

Spoiler :

-I accidentally snipped the top of the Black Sea.
-The Straight between Somalia and Arabia won't be that small.

 

[Cetrix]

Hello there,

This project is huge. I always would like to play longer antiquity civs in RFC, to re-create alexander empire. I think it could be a good idea to add hellenistic states like seleucid, if greece (or makedonia if you add this civ) collapse and if persia doesn't exist, for example.

Good luck !

 

[kravixon]

Zach, that's a good compromise between our ideas actually. Skewing some stuff keeps almost everything still on the right North/South orientation. I don't mind Spain being squashed, I compressed it in mine anyway. I don't really think we need anything above the black sea anyway.

I'm going to start a new thread based solely on map development, that way this thread can discuss anything that doesn't have to do with changes to the map.

 

[onedreamer]

personally don't think the Etruscans should be added. There isn't as much known about them, they only controlled part of Italy, and their capital would be maybe 3 tiles from Rome.

The etruscan civilization is very important, especially for the roman one and we know much about them, although we could know much more if the collection of informations about them written by the romans wasn't lost in the Dark Age. The Etruscans controlled an area larger than Phoenicia and Israel, or Athens and Sparta, if you really want to look at this in order to pick civs.

 

[JediClemente]

I don't see etruscans as much important as to include them.

They're quite much behind everyone else being considered. Yes, phoenicians and jews also (I don't know wether it's correct to refer to them in this period as Israel or not).

 

[Verily]

Right now there are very few civilizations, far too few for any serious conflict to arise. If there is going to be serious conflict, there have to be civilizations close to each other which have an impetus--other than UHVs--to fight.

The civilizations I would include (roughly in order of spawn date):

Sumer
Egypt
Babylon
Hittites
Minoa
Phoenicia
Troy
Assyria
Hebrews
Mycenae
Medes
Persia
Etruria
Athens
Sparta
Carthage
Rome
Macedon
Celts (sort of ambiguous spawn date, could spawn much, much earlier if desired, probably need lots of special mechanics either way)

I may think of others. And obviously we would want some Indus Valley civs if the map extends that far.

 

[Arkaeyn]

Troy would be, at worst, an independent city. I don't think there's enough there to really make it a playable civilization.

Akkad should definitely be included, and probably Lydia, though that may well be better as an indie. And if you're going all the way through Rome, you'll want Parthia as well.

 

[JediClemente]

There's no historical basis for a "Troy" civilization.

Medes, Persians, Parthians... they're not the same, but it's as if they were.

Greece can't support more than 3 civs (there's no physical space). For Mesopotamia, it's difficult.

Lydia is the Hittites, same as with the Persians (dynamic civ renaming).

 

[micbic]

Idea for civs and civ spawning dates

4000 BC: Egypt, Sumeria
3200 BC: Elam, Minoans
2400 BC: Hittites
1800 BC: Sumeria---> Babylonia , Assyria
1200 BC: Myceneans, Jews
1000 BC: Phoenicians, Phrygeans, Etruscans
700 BC: Babylonia ---> Chaldea
650 BC: Elam--->Medea, Jews---> Juddah, Phrygea--->Lydia, Myceneans---> Sparta and Athens (Peloponnese-Central Greece and Aegean) , Carthago

More later

 

[Verily]

There's no historical basis for a "Troy" civilization.

There certainly is. Not in a large an expansive sense, of course, but it would not be ahistorical for them to be included. But there may well be better choices.

Medes, Persians, Parthians... they're not the same, but it's as if they were.

Not really. Not at all, actually. The Parthians were not even of the same extraction; you're thinking of the Sassanids. The Parthians were a steppe people who invaded and conquered Persia, similar to Turkish rule in the Middle East much later.

As for Medes and Persia, they were at least as different as France and Burgundy, probably far, far more. And again, we want to encourage conflict and interesting gameplay. The competition between Persia and Medes is an important aspect of that.

Greece can't support more than 3 civs (there's no physical space). For Mesopotamia, it's difficult.

Of course. Mycenae should be gone by the time the Athenians and Spartans spawn; there would be a major barbarian invasion around 1250-1150 BCE which would wipe out the Mycenaeans and make room for Athens and Sparta. (The last part of the Mycenaean UHV would probably be to survive until the spawn dates of Athens and Sparta.) Minoa's collapse would be harder to simulate, but it's less important that Minoa be gone by the time the other Greeks spawn anyway. (And the Minoans weren't quite Greeks, either.)

Lydia is the Hittites, same as with the Persians (dynamic civ renaming).

Not really. That they were descended from the Hittites makes about as much sense for excluding them as it would make sense to exclude the Germans in RFCE because Germany was really just an offshoot of the Frankish kingdom. Lydia would probably be a better choice than Troy, though.

 

[ZachScape]

I agree with Jedi.

-Troy should be an independent. That is not ahistorical at all.
-Medes, Parthians, Persians are not the same IRL, but for the game sake, it seems like adding Medes and Parthia would be a waste of a civ-slot.
-Mycenae wasn't that extensive. They did strop the Minoan from rebuilding, but I would rather them independent.
-Lydia, Phygeans, Hittites is open for debate.

You are getting really literal. I admire your enthusiasm about adding civilizations and getting history right, but Dynamic naming kind of solves this problem. We should lean more towards having a more fun game play experience rather than following history exactly.
It's like a spectrum.

In RFC the Turks represent all the Anatolians in the region. The Ottomans, so on and so forth. We should follow that example.

 

[micbic]

The arrows show such dynamic changes.

 

[JediClemente]

Verily, I obviously didn't explain myself well enough.

I know those civs are NOT the same. But I don't support adding them to the game, as all the iranian ones can be put together as the persians, and so on.

If the AI in the Middle East is programmed to go to war a lot (which it should), collapsing and respawning should be frequent. It makes sense in the period. And a respawn hittites should not be called that, same as everyone assumes in RFC a respawned Rome is Italy.

Edit: and a civ is not a city. I repeat I see no historical basis for a Troian civilization.
For all we know, it's not even proved at all that what we have located as Troy now is the city Homer wrote about (work of fiction, anyone?).

 

[kravixon]

Right now there are very few civilizations, far too few for any serious conflict to arise. If there is going to be serious conflict, there have to be civilizations close to each other which have an impetus--other than UHVs--to fight.

If you look in the map development thread, I made a rather cheesy map with colored areas for the civs to get a feel for that kind of thing. Greece and Mesopotamia will have their share of conflict, however, so areas do seem sort of empty.

The civilizations I would include (roughly in order of spawn date):

Sumer
Egypt
Babylon
Hittites
Minoa
Germanic-Ostrogoth
Phoenicia
Troy
Assyria
Hebrews
Mycenae
Medes
Persia
Etruria
Athens
Sparta
Carthage
Rome
Macedon
Celts (sort of ambiguous spawn date, could spawn much, much earlier if desired, probably need lots of special mechanics either way)

I may think of others. And obviously we would want some Indus Valley civs if the map extends that far.

I've labeled the civs by blue for included, green for the more likely additions to the list, orange for independent cities, and plain text for civs that I don't think should be included.
I've added the ostrogoths to the list, 1) because I think Rome needs more competition, and 2) that region of the map is void of civs entirely. I'd be open to Mycenae being added (as a civ or even just an independent) after seeing how Athens and Sparta cope with the status quo of competing with eachother. In the event that Mycenae survives or even is thriving when Sparta spawns, I wouldn't want to cripple the AI.
I'm also in favor of the map stopping right before the Indus valley, as it's only relevance is the fact that Alexander fought a few battles at it's border. In game, the likely-hood of AI Macedonia or Athens even fighting their way through Persia is low at best, while the likely-hood of Persia having the only access to whatever luxury goods would end up there is exponentially higher.

 

[Verily]

I agree with Jedi.
You are getting really literal. I admire your enthusiasm about adding civilizations and getting history right, but Dynamic naming kind of solves this problem. We should lean more towards having a more fun game play experience rather than following history exactly.
It's like a spectrum.

You guys are totally missing the fact that there is currently essentially no competition on the vast majority of the map. That's why I want these added, for gameplay purposes. Persia will be monumentally boring if it isn't competing with Medes; Lydia fills a void in Anatolia and fosters extra conflict with (what's left of) the Hittites, Persians, Athenians, etc.

Look at the civ map kravixon drew: enormous chunks of it are simply unclaimed, and almost everyone has huge amounts of territory in which to expand peacefully and without anyone contesting it. Is that really what the ancient world is about?