• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

RFC Dawn of Civilization - The Historically Accurate Mega Campaign

Vulpeo

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 27, 2023
Messages
70
Since when I first found RFC Dawn of Civilization mod in 2015-2017, after occassionally playing it and randomly checking the forum looking for UHV strategies for several years, and especially after refreshing my mind about the game last couple of months with the release of the 1.17.0 version, I always had a curiosity, a question in mind - is it possible to have a RFC Dawn of Civilization campaign as much historically accurate as possible in its current version without messing with the WorldBuilder? The answer that I found in a practical way after spending lots of hours and days on it - yes, but under very, very specific and interconnected game circumstances that do not happen across every campaign. After so many tries and attempts, I think I finally found the most efficient way to have such a campaign which I'd like to explain and show step by step in this thread, retelling the whole campaign with the help of the screenshots.
The reason I called it a "Mega Campaign" is coming out of the idea of having a full DoC campaign starting at the earliest date possible which is 3000 BC, picking the Marathon Speed with 1500 turns which is the most efficient DoC game speed and attempt to play it to the very last 2020 AD turn and beyond until it becomes impossible to play as the map descends into the global warming desertification and the collapsing civilizations chaos. The mechanic which allows you to pick a new civilization to play when it spawns is very crucial and helpful for such a campaign, especially when in DoC unlike in vanilla RFC you can endlessly jump from one civilization to another upon their spawn with no limits. Here I practically found the list of civilizations with the help of which it is possible to have such a historically accurate mega campaign:
1. Babylonia - allows you to start at 3000 BC and be the first one to place a city on the whole map.
2. Rome - allows you to accurately shape the Mediterranean and Western European region by the means of creating the Roman Empire just as the Roman UHV demands it. Necessary to build the ground for the Byzantine civilization to accurately spawn.
3. Byzantium - allows you to accurately shape the post-Roman Dark Age Europe and Middle East.
4. Russia - allows you to affect, control and influence the processes all across the Eurasian continent throughout the rest of the campaign in order to keep them as historically accurate as possible.
One aspect of playing as these civilizations is attempting to accomplish all of their UHVs, no matter whether achieving them or not. Always keep in mind that not all of the UHVs must be accomplished in order for the mega campaign to keep going. Another reason why only these four civilizations have the key importance is that for the vast majority of the other civilizations much of the job is being done by the scripts. The Greeks are scripted to have the Alexander's conquests, The Turks are scripted to form a Seljuk Empire, the Mongols are scripted to wreck havoc across the most of the Eurasia, the Western European Civilizations are scripted to colonize the World in the accurate way, numerous other civilizations are scripted to have certain cities to switch to them upon spawn and etc. The Romans however are also scripted for the conquests but the problem is that they're very circumstancial and there's no guarantee that Rome can even stand until Byzantium spawns or even to be able to conduct the conquests just as successfully as they need to be in order to recreate the Roman Empire as it has to be. Which is why it is crucual to play as them in order to recreate an Empire in its historical borders for the campaign to continue. The Russians may also not always succeed at recreating the Russian Empire as it should be, aside from the fact that playing as Russia during the late game is the only way to affect and influence the most of the map as historically as possible.
I promise to you that it would be interesting enough to follow the timeline of the mega campaign as I'd be trying to retell it as some kind of a "story" which I decided to call the "DoC lore". Now, let's get started and see how it turned out to be!
 
Last edited:
Chapter 1: Babylonia

The Dawn of Civilization...

Choosing Babylonia, the marathon speed and the regent difficulty so that the game is neither hard nor easy, we launch the game and thus the mega campaign starts. The Mesopotamian Peoples manifest themselves in the fertile crescent region, coming together to form the first urbanized culture in the history of mankind.
 

Attachments

  • Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 13-29-32-119.jpg
    Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 13-29-32-119.jpg
    489.1 KB · Views: 356
  • Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 13-30-04-209.jpg
    Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 13-30-04-209.jpg
    199.3 KB · Views: 165
  • Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 13-34-23-268.jpg
    Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 13-34-23-268.jpg
    327.7 KB · Views: 181
It was the year of 3000 BC. The first city was founded, and its name was the city of Babylon. The first ever city on the whole map, the first ever city in the history of mankind.
 

Attachments

  • Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 14-13-43-909.jpg
    Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 14-13-43-909.jpg
    779.6 KB · Views: 191
  • Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 14-14-06-417.jpg
    Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 14-14-06-417.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 215
Looking around, the Sumerians find another city emerging. Following their example, the Elamite peoples found their own settlement which they call Shushan.
 

Attachments

  • Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 14-20-58-555.jpg
    Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 14-20-58-555.jpg
    739.7 KB · Views: 241
Is choosing Babylonia needed to accomplish something else? And also isn't Egypt still the first player no matter what?
 
Is choosing Babylonia needed to accomplish something else? And also isn't Egypt still the first player no matter what?
Babylonia is always the first active civilization on the map and the first to place a city
 
Before the slot system rework this v1.17, Egypt is always the first player slot. Since the rework, the civ the player chooses is always the first player slot.
 
Before the slot system rework this v1.17, Egypt is always the first player slot. Since the rework, the civ the player chooses is always the first player slot.
When starting the game as Egypt and then checking WorldBuilder, Babylonia would already have its first city placed. When starting the game as Babylonia, not even a single city is placed yet. At least this is how it had always been in previous versions. You can very clearly see it on the following self-explanatory screenshot. I don't understand what is an argument even about when this thing is literally there.
 

Attachments

  • Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 14-14-06-417.jpg
    Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-04 14-14-06-417.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 310
Last edited:
Update: failing to achieve a decent conclusion for the campaign. Germany/Prussia doesn't give up on wrecking me and when finally having such a chance by the 2031 AD turn sent me into a total nuclear oblivion. Still unable to figure out the strategy for the late game Russia as the technological backwardness begins to rapidly accelerate past the XIX century. Always trying to go into building as many cottages on map as possible but considering the size of a landmass and the need to construct military units all the time besides just making workers and constructing buildings it's a very challenging task.
 

Attachments

  • Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-08 21-21-14-594.jpg
    Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-08 21-21-14-594.jpg
    743 KB · Views: 339
  • Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-08 21-09-01-915.jpg
    Civ4BeyondSword 2023-03-08 21-09-01-915.jpg
    981.5 KB · Views: 443
When starting the game as Egypt and then checking WorldBuilder, Babylonia would already have its first city placed. When starting the game as Babylonia, not even a single city is placed yet. At least this is how it had always been in previous versions. You can very clearly see it on the following self-explanatory screenshot. I don't understand what is an argument even about when this thing is literally there.
What version are you in?

To clarify, the slot rework is actually implemented in v1.16.3. So if you have v1.16.3 or later, regardless of which civ you choose, you will always be Player 0. That does not work that way before v1.16.3, when all civs were allotted a fixed slot, scenario style, according to birth order. That is, Egypt is Player 0, then Babylonia is Player 1, Harappa is Player 2, etc., etc.
 
Last edited:
What version are you in?

To clarify, the slot rework is actually implemented in v1.16.3. So if you have v1.16.3 or later, regardless of which civ you choose, you will always be Player 0. That does not work that way before v1.16.3, when all civs were allotted a fixed slot, scenario style, according to birth order. That is, Egypt is Player 0, then Babylonia is Player 1, Harappa is Player 2, etc., etc.
I'll start as Egypt on 1.17.0 and see it myself. But yeah, I was mainly familiar with "Babylonia first" thing long before recently when I revisited DoC in January.
 
I'll start as Egypt on 1.17.0 and see it myself. But yeah, I was mainly familiar with "Babylonia first" thing long before recently when I revisited DoC in January.
If you don't believe me, then go ahead. You can even choose Harappa or a later civ on v1.17.0, and you will always be Player 0.

Then revert to v1.16.0 or older, and check the order of civs in the selection screen.
 
If you don't believe me, then go ahead. You can even choose Harappa or a later civ on v1.17.0, and you will always be Player 0.

Then revert to v1.16.0 or older, and check the order of civs in the selection screen.
I do, just curious to see it myself. For years until now I thought it was one way and now discovering that it's all different. I may have joined this forum a couple of months ago but I'm familiar with the game for a long time.
 
Update: failing to achieve a decent conclusion for the campaign. Germany/Prussia doesn't give up on wrecking me and when finally having such a chance by the 2031 AD turn sent me into a total nuclear oblivion. Still unable to figure out the strategy for the late game Russia as the technological backwardness begins to rapidly accelerate past the XIX century. Always trying to go into building as many cottages on map as possible but considering the size of a landmass and the need to construct military units all the time besides just making workers and constructing buildings it's a very challenging task.
This is interesting. Russia has very solid modifiers and incredible land to work with. Late game once you get research institutes set up, your teching becomes unstoppable. Also for production, Kiev, Moscow and Samara are behemoths. St. Petersburg’s is also great for commerce, especially if you spam cottages.
Can I see your city setup and civics? In my current game as Russia, I’m the tech leader generating about 3000 beakers per turn in 1940 with 60% research. I’m wondering what happened in your game that things ended so disastrously for you. I do play epic and monarch so maybe your speed and difficulty is affecting things significantly.
 
Last edited:
I do, just curious to see it myself. For years until now I thought it was one way and now discovering that it's all different. I may have joined this forum a couple of months ago but I'm familiar with the game for a long time.
It's changed during the development of 1.17.
 
This is interesting. Russia has very solid modifiers and incredible land to work with. Late game once you get research institutes set up, your teching becomes unstoppable. Also for production, Kiev, Moscow and Samara are behemoths. St. Petersburg’s is also great for commerce, especially if you spam cottages.
Can I see your city setup and civics? In my current game as Russia, I’m the tech leader generating about 3000 beakers per turn in 1940 with 60% research. I’m wondering what happened in your game that things ended so disastrously for you. I do play epic and monarch so maybe your speed and difficulty is affecting things significantly.
Sure, I may share a save from the 1877 AD turn and another one from the 1993 AD turn for a comparison. I'm having troubles with understanding what am I doing wrong with the overall strategy. Past XIX century I have to nearly fully stop all the military production and military campaigns just to fully concentrate on buildings and improvements since I don't see other way to not fall behind too much but it's still happening nonetheless. By mid-XX century Britain already launches the first satellite while I'm only able to do that by around 2020-s in the best case scenarios that I had. On normal game speed everything is much worse, having me still being stuck with renaissance era units by early XX century. I just don't get it, I see Germany literally spamming all of its territory with cottages and towns and breaking forward, I see Britain with all the colonies having less territories than me yet always being the most technologically advanced, and just by looking at the stats it goes very exponentially for Britain with the more and more rapid acceleration by the end.
 

Attachments

  • Ivan IV AD-1877-July Turn 1139.CivBeyondSwordSave
    2.4 MB · Views: 31
  • Ivan IV AD-1993-April Turn 1393.CivBeyondSwordSave
    3.2 MB · Views: 20
Last edited:
Sure, I may share a save from the 1877 AD turn and another one from the 1993 AD turn for a comparison. I'm having troubles with understanding what am I doing wrong with the overall strategy. Past XIX century I have to nearly fully stop all the military production and military campaigns just to fully concentrate on buildings and improvements since I don't see other way to not fall behind too much but it's still happening nonetheless. By mid-XX century Britain already launches the first satellite while I'm only able to do that by around 2020-s in the best case scenarios that I had. On normal game speed everything is much worse, having me still being stuck with renaissance era units by early XX century. I just don't get it, I see Germany literally spamming all of its territory with cottages and towns and breaking forward, I see Britain with all the colonies having less territories than me yet always being the most technologically advanced, and just by looking at the stats it goes very exponentially for Britain with the more and more rapid acceleration by the end.
Sounds good, I'll look at em. If you want you can check out my Russia save to see if that helps.
 

Attachments

  • Ivan IV AD-1965 Turn 653.CivBeyondSwordSave
    2.3 MB · Views: 21
Sure, I may share a save from the 1877 AD turn and another one from the 1993 AD turn for a comparison. I'm having troubles with understanding what am I doing wrong with the overall strategy. Past XIX century I have to nearly fully stop all the military production and military campaigns just to fully concentrate on buildings and improvements since I don't see other way to not fall behind too much but it's still happening nonetheless. By mid-XX century Britain already launches the first satellite while I'm only able to do that by around 2020-s in the best case scenarios that I had. On normal game speed everything is much worse, having me still being stuck with renaissance era units by early XX century. I just don't get it, I see Germany literally spamming all of its territory with cottages and towns and breaking forward, I see Britain with all the colonies having less territories than me yet always being the most technologically advanced, and just by looking at the stats it goes very exponentially for Britain with the more and more rapid acceleration by the end.
Just from a glance, I'm seeing a lot of things here that could be improved. You have so many cities that are just strangling your economy. You should be a lot more cautious about which cities you found because having worthless low pop cities will increase your maintenance costs for little gain. I attached a screenshot of the cities I think you can axe completely. I know it's tempting to establish a bunch of cities that are historical, but unless you're running republic, it's not worth it. This is also probably why you can't get a strong military going, sure you have more cities to build units with, but they take far longer. For comparison, in Kiev and Moscow I can pump out a tank in 1 turn., while most of your core cities need 5-6 turns with the exception of your Moscow. With Russia you want to especially take advantage of the space you have available. You can fit massive productive cities and you'll still end up with a lot of them. Look at my placement for comparison.

Also I would reconsider civics. I personally think totalitarian is extremely mediocre, if you want more research, run a specialist economy and use egalitarianism. State planning is better for production, but if you're behind in tech, free enterprise is a must have in my opinion.

There are probably more in depth things that could be fixed, but I think focusing on city placement will be a critical first step to improving your outcome.
 

Attachments

  • Cities to delete.jpg
    Cities to delete.jpg
    395.8 KB · Views: 388
  • My Cities.png
    My Cities.png
    824.5 KB · Views: 366
Just from a glance, I'm seeing a lot of things here that could be improved. You have so many cities that are just strangling your economy. You should be a lot more cautious about which cities you found because having worthless low pop cities will increase your maintenance costs for little gain. I attached a screenshot of the cities I think you can axe completely. I know it's tempting to establish a bunch of cities that are historical, but unless you're running republic, it's not worth it. This is also probably why you can't get a strong military going, sure you have more cities to build units with, but they take far longer. For comparison, in Kiev and Moscow I can pump out a tank in 1 turn., while most of your core cities need 5-6 turns with the exception of your Moscow. With Russia you want to especially take advantage of the space you have available. You can fit massive productive cities and you'll still end up with a lot of them. Look at my placement for comparison.

Also I would reconsider civics. I personally think totalitarian is extremely mediocre, if you want more research, run a specialist economy and use egalitarianism. State planning is better for production, but if you're behind in tech, free enterprise is a must have in my opinion.

There are probably more in depth things that could be fixed, but I think focusing on city placement will be a critical first step to improving your outcome.
Thank you. Yeah, the reason I place so many cities is to go historical which I understand is only causing more problems. Same goes with civics, intentionally going with totalitarianism and state party once I get to the Soviet Union and then reverting to the most efficient civics such as Free Enterprice once the Soviet Union period ends. Although at the same time state party provides with no cost for the cities which is actually helpful. Once the UN decides to enforce Democracy I have to go through releasing tons of unnecessary cities and make them independent in order to reduce the insane costs, at the same time simulating the dissolution of the USSR. However in my latest campaign that still didn't help me to speed my research or boost my economy much.
With all the things considered I might actually go after replaying all of campaign starting with XVIII century just to be more thoughtful with the cities. Novgorod, Tver and Yaroslavl were among the very first four cities that I founded, Caricyn/Stalingrad was also placed quite early in order to get iron quickly. The cities that I placed during the XVIII century were Tallinn, Odessa, Astrakhan, Novodvinsk and Orsk. Tallinn was needed to simulate the Baltics and at the same time expand my control over the coast of the Baltic Sea which is always problematic with the Swedish borders being so close. Odessa is needed to both simulate the conquest of the Black Sea coast and also to have an additional coastal city in order to get very nice economic buildings such as Customs House, Wharf and many more. The same applies to Astrakhan and Novodvinsk. Novyi Port is among the first 7 Siberian Cities that I needed to place as quickly as possible in order to achieve the Siberian cities UHV. As for the Orsk I used it to expand the control over the Kazakh steppes and also using it as a fort bordering the Persian Central Asia which I always plan to invade and conquer. Kazan is the city that spawns by itself and I have the rule within my campaign which is to avoid razing the cities unless absolutely necessary. The most unnecessary out of all these to me seems Tallinn which I might avoid placing as well as wait for a little longer with placing more of the Siberian cities until I get a decent economy. Might as well wait with the conquest of the Mongolian cities until the Soviet Union period as they drag me down even more.
 
Last edited:
Thank you. Yeah, the reason I place so many cities is to go historical which I understand is only causing more problems. Same goes with civics, intentionally going with totalitarianism and state party once I get to the Soviet Union and then reverting to the most efficient civics such as Free Enterprice once the Soviet Union period ends. Although at the same time state party provides with no cost for the cities which is actually helpful. Once the UN decides to enforce Democracy I have to go through releasing tons of unnecessary cities and make them independent in order to reduce the insane costs, at the same time simulating the dissolution of the USSR. However in my latest campaign that still didn't help me to speed my research or boost my economy much.
With all the things considered I might actually go after replaying all of campaign starting with XVIII century just to be more thoughtful with the cities. Novgorod, Tver and Yaroslavl were among the very first four cities that I founded, Caricyn/Stalingrad was also placed quite early in order to get iron quickly. The cities that I placed during the XVIII century were Tallinn, Odessa, Astrakhan, Novodvinsk and Orsk. Tallinn was needed to simulate the Baltics and at the same time expand my control over the coast of the Baltic Sea which is always problematic with the Swedish borders being so close. Odessa is needed to both simulate the conquest of the Black Sea coast and also to have an additional coastal city in order to get very nice economic buildings such as Customs House, Wharf and many more. The same applies to Astrakhan and Novodvinsk. Novyi Port is among the first 7 Siberian Cities that I needed to place as quickly as possible in order to achieve the Siberian cities UHV. As for the Orsk I used it to expand the control over the Kazakh steppes and also using it as a fort bordering the Persian Central Asia which I always plan to invade and conquer. Kazan is the city that spawns by itself and I have the rule within my campaign which is to avoid razing the cities unless absolutely necessary. The most unnecessary out of all these to me seems Tallinn which I might avoid placing as well as wait for a little longer with placing more of the Siberian cities until I get a decent economy. Might as well wait with the conquest of the Mongolian cities until the Soviet Union period as they drag me down even more.
So I'll restart the campaign with the 1756 AD turn. Decided that I'll not place Tallinn. Will place Odessa once I get very decent economy. Will need Bodajbo, Cicikar and Vladivostok before the Soviet Union period in order to have the Siberian coast for the Trans-Siberian railway UHV and also to establish a border with China and Korea. Also will conquer Fars and Central Asian cities by the early XX Century. Once I'll get the state party I'll go after placing Pavlodar, Bijsk, Ajan, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Norilsk, Velikiy Ustug, as well as going full on into conquering Mongolia and other neighboring nations as the city cost would not matter during this period. Totalitarianism would also be helping an effort, having no revolts upon city conquest. Might also conquer Mongolian cities before the Soviet Union only to release them as unified Mongolia once I switch to Central Planning and then reconquer them later on. As soon as the democracy is enforced by the UN I'll release most of the conquered cities.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom