JediClemente
Prince
Don't you think four mesopotamian civs is too much?
Even now having Sumer is stretching it a bit, as they would be very shorlived.
RFC:Antiquity
- Thread starter kravixon
- Start date
Don't you think four mesopotamian civs is too much?
Even now having Sumer is stretching it a bit, as they would be very shorlived.
Arkaeyn
King
Akkad is to the northwest of Babylon, itself northwest of Sumer, and south of Assur.
http://kbagdanov.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/map-1.jpg
As for it being too many civs in a small area...I mean, the point of the mod is to do the ancient world, and the ancient world is focused in Mesopotamia, yes? So why not treat it like Europe in RFC.
http://kbagdanov.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/map-1.jpg
As for it being too many civs in a small area...I mean, the point of the mod is to do the ancient world, and the ancient world is focused in Mesopotamia, yes? So why not treat it like Europe in RFC.
Jet
No, no, please. Please.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 2,431
The Arabian core area overlaps with both the Babylonian and Persian core areas.
JediClemente
Prince
JediClemente
Prince
Europe is bigger in RFC than Mesopotamia here. Lower Mesopotamia more so. The focus is not just that, but the whole Middle East.
Akkad ruled like... 200 years, not far from the beginning of the scenario. That is no time at all.
They can easily be considered barbarians (they were so for sumerians).
Edit: and that map is wrong. Akkad is the same region as later Babylon.
merijn_v1
Black Belt
etc. It is et cetera. 
Cetrix
Merovingian
Native celts 
Could be nice to play them, some tribes in Gaul like Arvernes or Eduens (french name) were powerfull.
Arverni and Aedui could start in Gaul, they can fight each other, and with natives. Rome could benefite from those rivalities to conquer entire Gaul. In history, Rome and Aedui were very closed allies.
Here is a map with Aedui (Eduens), Arverni (Arvernes) and Natives.
Could be nice to play them, some tribes in Gaul like Arvernes or Eduens (french name) were powerfull. Arverni and Aedui could start in Gaul, they can fight each other, and with natives. Rome could benefite from those rivalities to conquer entire Gaul. In history, Rome and Aedui were very closed allies.
Here is a map with Aedui (Eduens), Arverni (Arvernes) and Natives.
Attachments
JediClemente
Prince
Native celts
Arverni and Aedui could start in Gaul, they can fight each other, and with natives. Rome could benefite from those rivalities to conquer entire Gaul. In history, Rome and Aedui were very closed allies.
Here is a map with Aedui (Eduens), Arverni (Arvernes) and Natives.
Celts need to be there, for sure. But I thought of them as in RFC.
The main problem for making them playable is... what are they supposed to do? In their region of the map they'll have the roman AI as only real competition.
What historically plausible UHV could there be for them?
And only a few techs would apply to them, really. Or would you have them building theatres, libraries and trirremes?
Cetrix
Merovingian
In Gaul, some celt people had nice cities, with good trade each other and Rome.
But... Julius Caesar made them backward people and barbarians in his De bello gallico, the most famous source of the celt civilization in Gaul. Today, some of his comments on celt people is a subject of controversy.
Rome bring Gaul his civilization too, and it create a new one, the result of a syncretism.
About my example of 2 celt civilizations, the challenge could be :
- Resist to the other celt natives.
- Resist to german tribes and barbarians.
- Fight again the other playable celt civ.
- Why not add a celtiberian civ ? Ok, 3 celt civilizations but... in the other hand, mesopotamia could be overpopulated with too much civs, so we can equilibrate.
Mmh... or we can give the possibility, if Rome collapse, to release a gallo-roman civ. That's a good deal !
Here is an article about the historical gallic empire :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Empire
"The Gallic Empire (in Latin Imperium Galliarum) is the modern name for the independent realm that existed from 260 to 273, during the Roman Empire's Crisis of the Third Century."
Gallic empire rised when rome collapsed, during the anarchy.
But... Julius Caesar made them backward people and barbarians in his De bello gallico, the most famous source of the celt civilization in Gaul. Today, some of his comments on celt people is a subject of controversy.
Rome bring Gaul his civilization too, and it create a new one, the result of a syncretism.
About my example of 2 celt civilizations, the challenge could be :
- Resist to the other celt natives.
- Resist to german tribes and barbarians.
- Fight again the other playable celt civ.
- Why not add a celtiberian civ ? Ok, 3 celt civilizations but... in the other hand, mesopotamia could be overpopulated with too much civs, so we can equilibrate.
Celts did it, but with gallo-roman civilization :/ I agree with you about the few civs.
Mmh... or we can give the possibility, if Rome collapse, to release a gallo-roman civ. That's a good deal !
Here is an article about the historical gallic empire :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallic_Empire
"The Gallic Empire (in Latin Imperium Galliarum) is the modern name for the independent realm that existed from 260 to 273, during the Roman Empire's Crisis of the Third Century."
Gallic empire rised when rome collapsed, during the anarchy.
For a celt civ (not gallo-roman) ? Maybe control the celt historical expansion area (gaul, spain, britannia, austria), no losing cities from natives or barbarians, and so on.
How 'bout this:
One Celtic Team, non playable in the release. But there could be a ModModMod that could be released by you, and others who feel the same about the Celts on this map, that makes them playable, give them a UU and UB (may have to be something other than a dun, we may use that for a generic building) as well as UHVs. So far, we can't get rid of any of the civilizations on the map Jedi just posted, except maybe two, and already we have a few contested ones:
As wells as Akkadia.
I just got an idea. How about we figure someway to code the game to accept the civilizations that aren't contested, but put the most controversial civs into a random generator. For example, we could put Etruria, Yemen, Minoa, Elam, and Celtia into the random list, and when a game starts, the game pulls out one of those civs from a hat. If the human player at the beginning selects one of those, it will automatically be put into the game, like in RAND on a small map. If somebody is strongly against any of the civs, or would like to see one of them everytime, you can go into a file, and put a 0 in front of the civs that you definitely don't want.
It would require a hell of a lot of play testing, bla bla blu bla. (I didn't feel like finishing that sentence)
Maybe we could narrow it down. I just want the game to be as fun as possible.
One Celtic Team, non playable in the release. But there could be a ModModMod that could be released by you, and others who feel the same about the Celts on this map, that makes them playable, give them a UU and UB (may have to be something other than a dun, we may use that for a generic building) as well as UHVs. So far, we can't get rid of any of the civilizations on the map Jedi just posted, except maybe two, and already we have a few contested ones:
Spoiler :
I just got an idea. How about we figure someway to code the game to accept the civilizations that aren't contested, but put the most controversial civs into a random generator. For example, we could put Etruria, Yemen, Minoa, Elam, and Celtia into the random list, and when a game starts, the game pulls out one of those civs from a hat. If the human player at the beginning selects one of those, it will automatically be put into the game, like in RAND on a small map. If somebody is strongly against any of the civs, or would like to see one of them everytime, you can go into a file, and put a 0 in front of the civs that you definitely don't want.
It would require a hell of a lot of play testing, bla bla blu bla. (I didn't feel like finishing that sentence)
Maybe we could narrow it down. I just want the game to be as fun as possible.
kravixon
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2008
- Messages
- 214
I think that there should be both the celts as they appear in RFC, and a playable celtic civ. I have no ideas what the uhv would be.
Keep in mind that the scenario will probably be from 3,000bc (advent of writing and a lot of other stuff) into the roman empire, whether the end date is 31bc, 117AD, or 476AD. Akkad ruled for about 200 years, and in the beginning of the game turns consist of more turns. More civs also slow down the game, and the "cost" in terms of game speed and work must be balanced by benefit a civ will bring.
Keep in mind that the scenario will probably be from 3,000bc (advent of writing and a lot of other stuff) into the roman empire, whether the end date is 31bc, 117AD, or 476AD. Akkad ruled for about 200 years, and in the beginning of the game turns consist of more turns. More civs also slow down the game, and the "cost" in terms of game speed and work must be balanced by benefit a civ will bring.
My two cents, though, again, this depends on when the mod ends and how many civs. All years are in BC. I'll start with what I think should be in:
Obvious ones would be Babylonia, Assyria, Hatti, Egypt, Persia (Achaemid), Rome, Carthage, Macedon.
Others I'd include (and why) are:
Sumer(ia). First civ in the Cradle of Civilization. Capital can be Uruk or Ur. Later may be dynamically changed to Sumer and Akkad, before the Babylonians spawn. No Akkadians, they would be in the game for too short a time.
Athens and Sparta could be OCCs; if the Greeks are put together at the peninsula (one civ), Mycenae should be the capital at a 1300-1200 Greek startup. Athens would be more of a colonizing nation, though I think that the Delian League would be a more appropriate name dynamically.
Phoenicia should be in, as they were pretty much the same as Greece later on in antiquity, a loose group of culturally and linguistically related cities who were rivals in trade, but not necessarily war.
Israel/Judah: There's a chance Solomon was real, as well as David; either way, Israel (later Israel and Judah after the split) should be in. Israel may have controlled territory from Damascus to Ezion-Geber (just east of the Sinai Peninsula) at one point. 1100 to 580, with Israel conquered by Assyria around 720 and the Neo-Babylonians taking Judah later.
Harappans (India): Their civilization seems to have lasted until about 1300, though I was under the impression of 1700-1600. That's quite enough time to have them in the game, especially as a starting civ.
Parthia: Not the same as Achaemid Persia, this civ began in the east of the Caspian, northeast of where the Persians would spawn. If the game goes on later, they would start around 300 and would go play until the end, potentially warring with India, Persia (Seleucids), Bactria (if they are in), and others west.
Lydia: Not large, but important for a while. One possible UHV condition: discover currency (mint coins) first?
Etruria: gives the Romans a good foil in Italy at the start, and they colonized most of Italy as well as Corsica. 1200 to 260 would be a long time in Civ terms.
Not so sure about these, but they could work:
Minoans: Trading empire, maybe with a preference for Greek mainland/Turkish coast Cypriot colonization? Another potential OCC, though they seem to have been around from 2700-1400 or so, and did colonize some of the Greek islands.
Armenia/Urartu/Mitanni: 900 on (1400 for Mitanni), one UHV could be to not lose a city, since they were invaded so many times.
I don't agree with these too much:
Arabs: They didn't settle anywhere except for southern Yemen (one state was called Saba, or Sheba). Mostly didn't have any influence on the rest of the ancient world until 632 AD, way after this potential mod.
Nubia/Kush/Meroe: I do like them, but again, too much on the periphery and was mainly under Egyptian influence. Good trading nation, though.
Bactria: Not really important enough, in my estimation; generally under Persia's/Parthia's/Mauryan Empire's yoke.
Celts: Periphery as well, this includes the Gauls. Maybe as indy cities in France/Spain, but otherwise, no.
Germanic tribes: should stay as barbs.
Obvious ones would be Babylonia, Assyria, Hatti, Egypt, Persia (Achaemid), Rome, Carthage, Macedon.
Others I'd include (and why) are:
Sumer(ia). First civ in the Cradle of Civilization. Capital can be Uruk or Ur. Later may be dynamically changed to Sumer and Akkad, before the Babylonians spawn. No Akkadians, they would be in the game for too short a time.
Athens and Sparta could be OCCs; if the Greeks are put together at the peninsula (one civ), Mycenae should be the capital at a 1300-1200 Greek startup. Athens would be more of a colonizing nation, though I think that the Delian League would be a more appropriate name dynamically.
Phoenicia should be in, as they were pretty much the same as Greece later on in antiquity, a loose group of culturally and linguistically related cities who were rivals in trade, but not necessarily war.
Israel/Judah: There's a chance Solomon was real, as well as David; either way, Israel (later Israel and Judah after the split) should be in. Israel may have controlled territory from Damascus to Ezion-Geber (just east of the Sinai Peninsula) at one point. 1100 to 580, with Israel conquered by Assyria around 720 and the Neo-Babylonians taking Judah later.
Harappans (India): Their civilization seems to have lasted until about 1300, though I was under the impression of 1700-1600. That's quite enough time to have them in the game, especially as a starting civ.
Parthia: Not the same as Achaemid Persia, this civ began in the east of the Caspian, northeast of where the Persians would spawn. If the game goes on later, they would start around 300 and would go play until the end, potentially warring with India, Persia (Seleucids), Bactria (if they are in), and others west.
Lydia: Not large, but important for a while. One possible UHV condition: discover currency (mint coins) first?
Etruria: gives the Romans a good foil in Italy at the start, and they colonized most of Italy as well as Corsica. 1200 to 260 would be a long time in Civ terms.
Not so sure about these, but they could work:
Minoans: Trading empire, maybe with a preference for Greek mainland/Turkish coast Cypriot colonization? Another potential OCC, though they seem to have been around from 2700-1400 or so, and did colonize some of the Greek islands.
Armenia/Urartu/Mitanni: 900 on (1400 for Mitanni), one UHV could be to not lose a city, since they were invaded so many times.
I don't agree with these too much:
Arabs: They didn't settle anywhere except for southern Yemen (one state was called Saba, or Sheba). Mostly didn't have any influence on the rest of the ancient world until 632 AD, way after this potential mod.
Nubia/Kush/Meroe: I do like them, but again, too much on the periphery and was mainly under Egyptian influence. Good trading nation, though.
Bactria: Not really important enough, in my estimation; generally under Persia's/Parthia's/Mauryan Empire's yoke.
Celts: Periphery as well, this includes the Gauls. Maybe as indy cities in France/Spain, but otherwise, no.
Germanic tribes: should stay as barbs.
JediClemente
Prince
Etruria is much more like 750-400 BC, stretching it a bit (properly till 500 BC). As to foil for the Roman Republic, I prefer the Gallic invasors.
Bactrians are supposed to provide a threat to the invading persians, same as middle-game indians. It's a big part of the map without civs.
Greeks will be split into Athens, Sparta and Macedon. I mean, there was already work on the map to make the place big enough for that. It wouldn't be nice to call it Antiquity and not be able to confront the first two! There's a lot for them to colonize anyway (though I'd make Sparta a little less interested in that and more in military achievements).
As for the Yemen civ, well, they were a major trade player long before the date you provide. There wasn't much point for Mali in RFC either. That a civ is included doesn't mean you have to play it, or even that it will have any impact on your distant civ.
Bactrians are supposed to provide a threat to the invading persians, same as middle-game indians. It's a big part of the map without civs.
Greeks will be split into Athens, Sparta and Macedon. I mean, there was already work on the map to make the place big enough for that. It wouldn't be nice to call it Antiquity and not be able to confront the first two! There's a lot for them to colonize anyway (though I'd make Sparta a little less interested in that and more in military achievements).
As for the Yemen civ, well, they were a major trade player long before the date you provide. There wasn't much point for Mali in RFC either. That a civ is included doesn't mean you have to play it, or even that it will have any impact on your distant civ.
Thanks Virdrago for your 2 cents. Also, I think Armenia/Urartu/Mitanni should definitely be in the game.
I agree with kbk as well. It is the perfect counterpart for Arabia, which he pointed out to me. I like Olympian better, as Hellenic is a synonym to Greek. We should have it possible that somebody else can found that religion, but route Greek's tech progression to go for it first. I think we should change 'Sumerian' to something else, like Mesopotamian. Same with Latin and Phoenecian/Punic. Does anyone have any ideas?
Actually, from Late 9th century BC to 283. Using Arkaeyn's timeline on post 135, it gives them just over 100 turns. And that should be a lot of game play, as well as adding some flavor to Italy. We could have a more intense Mediterranean if we add them. There could be more alliance combos and make a "world war" (which we should have possible. Not a scripted event, but easily done. Like in RFC) that much better.
I agree with kbk as well. It is the perfect counterpart for Arabia, which he pointed out to me. I like Olympian better, as Hellenic is a synonym to Greek. We should have it possible that somebody else can found that religion, but route Greek's tech progression to go for it first. I think we should change 'Sumerian' to something else, like Mesopotamian. Same with Latin and Phoenecian/Punic. Does anyone have any ideas?
BurnEmDown
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,718
Indeed Phoenecian shouldn't be called like this. Maybe Baalism? Although I know they worshiped other gods as well. Punic sounds right, although that's more of an ethno-group.
Similar threads
- Poll
