RFC:Antiquity

[ZachScape]

They way I see it, Persia will have to compete with Babylon, Sumer, Assyria, Hittites, Phoenecians, and Barbarians. Hittites will have to compete with Persians, and Greek colonies. I am not ruling anything out. On the other page, I put proposed and definite. Let's first get the essentials and then add more if we have the room.

 

[kravixon]

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?

I still don't agree with Parthia/Medes/Persia being split into different civs, at least not until we figure out if it can be handled by the AI. The biggest problem is that they all occupy the same exact area, and their rules pick up where the others leave off. However, I had a brain fart and was confusing Lydia with Ugarit. I heartily agree with Lydia being added. They'll occupy the western( read:empty) part of Anatolia, and can even represent Pergamum if it respawns.

As for Mycenae, as I said, it would have to wait to see if Sparta/Athens can survive each other, let alone possibly have their starts f'ed up.

I added Israel (which should really be called the Hebrews, to represent both Israel and Judah once they split), Minoans, and the yet-to-be-chosen Germanic tribe to my map, and made notes of what land can't really be expanded into.

 

[kravixon]

Also, I would suggest that when tests first start, Etruria and Sumer be represented as minor civs.
I would also suggest major incentives for players and the AI in particular to colonize, and make the AI as aggressive as possible, so that borders actually fill out and the map is filled.

 

[Arkaeyn]

If I recall correctly, Parthia should spawn in the north of "Persia", while the Medes are more between the heart of the Achaemenids and Babylon.

I don't think this is that big of a difference between what happens with Rome in RFC and what would happen around Persia in an Antiquity mod. The Romans can, and probably should, expand into Spain, France, and Germany. Those cities will flip.

Likewise, the Hittites and Lydians should exist in different parts of Asia Minor.


On the other hand, I'm not sure that a Mycenaean civ wouldn't have everything flip by a future Athens/Sparta spawn. Since both Athens and Sparta existed in Mycenaean times, I think that one is droppable.

 

[JediClemente]

Also, I would suggest that when tests first start, Etruria and Sumer be represented as minor civs.
I would also suggest major incentives for players and the AI in particular to colonize, and make the AI as aggressive as possible, so that borders actually fill out and the map is filled.

I think Middle Eastern civs should we very aggresive, yes (for persians and assyrians the most), but not the egyptians for example.

And as for the colonizing, please not out of historical boundaries. For me that's a major feature in RFC. Phoenicians, some greeks (I repeat the problem: which ones? Sparta shouldn't be supposed to colonize, if so only a bit; could be Athens and another Asia Minor-coastal greek civ) and carthanigians should colonize more than others.

 

[kravixon]

I'd say the Egyptians were pretty aggressive. They conquered the areas of two of our proposed civs.

But of course, we'll use settler maps. I'd like Phoenicia, Athens, Carthage, and Rome in particular to colonize a lot, as they did.

 

[ZachScape]

I think Middle Eastern civs should we very aggresive, yes (for persians and assyrians the most), but not the egyptians for example.

And as for the colonizing, please not out of historical boundaries. For me that's a major feature in RFC. Phoenicians, some greeks (I repeat the problem: which ones? Sparta shouldn't be supposed to colonize, if so only a bit; could be Athens and another Asia Minor-coastal greek civ) and carthanigians should colonize more than others.

The way colonization works is defined by specifically coded maps. It's not a free-for-all like it is in regular Civilization IV. All the plots in the entire map are represented by a 0. We fill specific 0s in to tell the AI where to settle.

It's something like that.

 

[onedreamer]

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

LOL is the only comment one can make to such statements.

 

[JediClemente]

Edit: nevermind.

 

[Wessel V1]

IIRC (my last lesson Latin was almost 3 years ago), the etruscan didn't have such a geographical impact, however they had a major influence on the early Roman culture. Now that doesn't mean that they should be a civ (I'd leave them out personally) but at some stage there should be something to represent them. Perhaps an independent city that flips to them.

 

[micbic]

Maybe start Etruscan at 900 BC and dynamically rename them to Romans at 500 BC? I know that Rome was built by Etruscan

 

[ZachScape]

Romans should get NO flips, even if Etruria is an independent. I think that adding Etruria will make gameplay for RFCA significantly better.

 

[JediClemente]

If romans get no flips that means the AI most surely won't achieve anything in the game.

 

[ZachScape]

Not if they start with an aggressive war map and an advanced army. Romans IRL started as one city. So AI can say team up with Etruscans, then BS them and conquer Etruria and southern Italy.
They did that with Latin League, but Latin league will definitely not be in our game.

 

[kravixon]

As far as I know, most of what is known about the Etruscans is about their religious stuff. Indeed, the wikipedia articles on Etruscan Civilization and Etruscan History are criminally short.

What I can find out though from that and different sites is very conflicting.

Spoiler :

"From the mid 4th century BC, the once flourishing commercial and military power of the Etruscans was thus reduced to city-states which retreated into their original territories in central Italy. Rome began its attacks on Etruria in approximately 498 BCE and concluded in 264 BCE." (264 was when the Punic Wars started, for reference)

Which conflicts with "One by one Rome defeated both the persistent Sabines and the local cities that were either under Etruscan control or else Latin towns that had cast off their Etruscan rulers.[120] Rome defeated Latin cities in the Battle of Lake Regillus in 496 BC,[121][119] the Battle of Mons Algidus in 458 BC, the Battle of Corbione in 446 BC,[122] [123] the Battle of Aricia,[124] and an Etruscan city in the Battle of the Cremera in 477 BC,[125][126]By the end of this period, Rome had effectively completed the conquest of their immediate Etruscan and Latin neighbours,[127] as well as secured their position against the immediate threat posed by the tribespeople of the nearby Apennine hills.

I'm for Etruria being a minor civ. I can't think of what their unique units would be if we did decide to make them a full blown civ.

 

[ZachScape]

I've been doing hours of research on these guys, and the more I read about them, the more I am convinced that they should be a civilization in Antiquity. Here is most informative, convincing, and compelling.

An MSN Article:

Spoiler :

At the height of their power the Etruscans were an imposing military force, although this was probably not coordinated among the city states. The infantry appears to have been the mainstay of the force. The principal weapons were the spear and the battleaxe, the latter being used for throwing as well as for striking. The bow and the javelin were also used; arrows and javelins are frequently found in excavated Etruscan tombs. Helmets and shields of various designs were adapted from those of the Greeks, the Gauls, and of the tribes inhabiting the eastern Alps. Swords were apparently rare and highly prized. The cavalry was probably an important part of the Etruscan army, while chariots have been found in large tombs. The navy was remarkably powerful and virtually dominated the Mediterranean for almost two centuries.

This gives me three ideas for UUs. A axeman, but could be called a battle-axeman or something. We could use Greek art for it and just leave out a culturally diverse Greek unit. Second could be a calvary. The third being some sort of navy vessel. I'll have to do some more research on the calvary and navy if you want to go with having the Etruscans as a civilization. We may have to sacrifice some Greek culturally diverse units, but I think it's a fair trade.

Most Etruscan cities were laid out in the form of a quadrangle, with fortifications and encompassing walls enforced by double gates and towers. These building methods were also used outside Etruria. The wall surrounding the early city of Rome, reputedly built during the time of Servius Tullius (reigned 578-534 BC) was of Etruscan construction.

Their unique building could be a type of wall, I'm leaning towards a stonewall because of their advanced use of stone.

http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578572/Etruscan_Civilization.html

Here is the flag that we can use:

Spoiler :

Their unique power could be a 2x cultural influence ((100-Etruscan Influence)/number of civilizations with influence + original Etruscan influence I should say). So say they share a border with Rome. Instead of having a 38-61 percent with Rome, respectively, it would be a 69-30 percent with Rome. I concluded this after eading much about the derivation of Roman culture from the Etruscans, especially the religions part of the MSN article.

 

[The Capo]

I have been following this thread for a while now without saying anything and I just think its a really great idea. I am currently working on some of my own stuff so I can't help out much but I made a few LHs you might want to use for this.

This first one is Sennacherib of Assyria, I figure he could easily find a home in this mod.

This one is Cersobleptes of the Thrace. If you had a Dacian or Thracian faction he could be used for that. Or maybe ancient Gauls or something.

This one was made as Solomon for Israel. But he could probably be used for anything really.

I know Ramasses is already there, but I also made this Egyptian Pharaoh LH too.

Then there's this Marc Antony LH made by pencilgod, which I think is a really good LH and should probably be used for an early Roman leaderhead.

What do you guys think?

 

[BurnEmDown]

Those are all very nice! I think only Phoenician and Carthaginian LHs are needed now, the LHs for Greek civilizations should be easy to find amongst the many LHs on the site.

 

[JediClemente]

Sorry ZachScape, I'm all against Etruria in the mod as any other thing than indys.

I think that would be a huge problem for roman AI (even the human player), and how would you find a UHV for that?

It's just not worth the inclusion

 

[ZachScape]

The Capo, those are great leaderheads that could fit in this mod quite well. Do you have any links to thread you got them from?

Jedi, I agree that they could be independent, but they could be a great game play feature. They could have four cities that could easily historically fit on land, 300 years of domination and last 600 years historically. Depending on if we have turns of 3 years or 5 at that point, they could have 120-180 turns. I already have a couple of UHV ideas. After I research them a little more, I'll post them. Rome definitely should not be able to conquer the Mediterranean unless it was a human player, but given 300 years, I might be able to conquer Italy, like it did historically.
Etruria had the greatest Naval Fleet for about 200 years, too. They also have their own city name map for all of Italy that we could combine with the rest of Rome's map. Also, just think how easy it will be for Rome to get to Greece or Spain without the threat of Etruria. It would be more ahistorical that way.
We should start the mod without them, but just consider it.