Rhye's and Fall of Civilization info and discussion thread

[Rhye]

I'll post here a bit of info and screenshots whenever I have some.
Please leave the other thread to the settlers maps discussion only.


Given the new discussion about civs, I thought that I should post here the temporary list of civs. It's possible that it will change later on.
Oh, and this is for vanilla, of course.
In the main civs, I still have some doubts about what to leave out 2 between Vikings/Songhai/Siam/Korea/Ethiopia(Songhai renamed)


Minor civs won't necessarili appear in every game.
They are:

--Europe
POLAND
ITALY
VENICE
PAPAL_STATE
CELTIA
SWEDEN
AUSTRIA_HUNGARY
PORTUGAL
NETHERLANDS
--Asia
KOREA
TIBET
PHOENICIA
ISRAEL
HITTITES
BYZANTIUM
--America
MAYA
NATIVE_AMERICANS
BRAZIL
CONFEDERACY
CANADA
--Other
ETHIOPIA
AUSTRALIA
--Generic
INDEPENDENT1
INDEPENDENT2
ASIA
AFRICA
LATIN_AMERICA
SLAVIA

 

[thadian]

While i love korea, the problem with earth maps is you lack a real historical region to occupy. Confederacy? Seriously? Equestria plx. (pun intended)

I look forward to playing this - Im glad to see it back!

 

[NinjaCow64]

Yay Australia! Would that represent Aboriginal (pre-European) Australia, modern Australia or both? You might want to add a Pacific generic City State.

So I assume that each of the CSs would spawn if certain criteria (like that Australia would spawn if the people who have colonised Australia are unstable)? That sounds like an awesome idea!

 

[Rhye]

So I assume that each of the CSs would spawn if certain criteria (like that Australia would spawn if the people who have colonised Australia are unstable)? That sounds like an awesome idea!

exactly. Unstable America can give life to Confederacy or Canada. It's more appropriate than "independent", isn't it.

 

[NinjaCow64]

exactly. Unstable America can give life to Confederacy or Canada. It's more appropriate than "independent", isn't it.

Much more.

Yay Australia! Would that represent Aboriginal (pre-European) Australia, modern Australia or both? Sorry about reposting that, but I am about as excited as a kid in a candy store that demands payment in giving them your homework questions for them to do for you. Damn, I might even get G&K for this.

 

[thadian]

I would like to propose a different game for the Inca.

The Sapa Dynasty established itself in the 1200's.

Spoiler :

Quecha culture got its start by conquest of Chimu. The Chimu were the big dogs on the block at the time the quecha began to expand under the name Manco Capac, who constructed Cusco. From 1200 to 1400 they resided in Cuzco as more of a city-state by civ terms than an empire. At this point, the Sapa Inca dynasty has been in power for a few generations.

By the early 1400s, the Incas had absorbed or defeated various rival tribes within the Cusco region. They struck up a tactical alliance with the Lupaca, from the Lake Titicaca region. However, despite making alliances, it was outside aggression that changed their culture.

Spoiler :

1438 – The Chanca tribe attacks the city of Cusco from the north. The current Inca ruler, Viracocha Inca, flees the city with his son and heir to the throne, Inca Urcon. Viracocha’s other son, Inca Yupanqui, stays in Cusco to offer a last-ditch defense of the city. 1438 to 1463 – Inca Yupanqui leads a heroic and successful defense of the city. He takes control of the realm and becomes known as Pachacuti (Pachacutec). He begins a period of rapid territorial expansion while reorganizing the governmental system (it is also likely that Machu Picchu was built during this period).

The Inca civilization develops into the Inca Empire, Tawantinsuyu.

The end of his great road was the battle of Maule.

Spoiler :

It would be the Mapuche who turned away the armies of the Inca and the Colonists preventing true conquest of Patagonia and halting the southern expansion.

I would like the early inca game to start by conquering a City State, which will be re-named Cuzco. Then, other city states will appear, leaving the Inca to settle north around Cajamarca and Quito.

When the new world is discovered, the Inca should move their capital to Quito. This is because Quito was the capital of Huayna Capac and when Atahualpa defeated Huascar, the people of Cuzco considered Atahualpa to be an illegitimate ruler and a foreigner from Quito.

When the battle of Cajamarca resulted in imprisonment of Atahualpa, the spaniards used Cajamarca.

The Spaniards by the way, made their landing and invasion from Tumbez. When Cortez saw tumbez, he described Babylon - when he returned with conquistadors, Tumbez was in ashes, a casualty of Civil War between Atahualpa and Huascar.

When the spaniards moved from Cajamarca to Cuzco, they had to fight their way into the city where the Inca people fled to Vilcabamba, northwest of Cusco.


I would like the UHV and style of gameplay to really examine the Inca and with just a few simple events (when the inca are AI) and choices when human (move capital to quito? peace or conquest with city states?)

 

[Catalonia]

Catalonia
Flag:Senyera

Spoiler :

Leader: Francesc Macià

Spoiler :

Special unit: Almogàver

Spoiler :

Swordsman, Cost: 75 production; 10 strength; 3 moves; +25% to strength when attack; +50% in foreign lands

Unic building: modernist building

Spoiler :

Like museum, 1 gold per turn, 5 culture per turn

Trait: Mediterranian sailors, +2 gold per trade route.
Objectives: Ocupe Valencia and Balearic islands until 1500
Kill 5 american units until 1700
Don't lose any city at 1920-1940

 

[Catalonia]

Poland
Flag:White Eagle

Spoiler :

Leader: Józef Piłsudski

Spoiler :

Special unit: Polish Hussars

Spoiler :

Lancer, the same than a lancer but have +50% against melee units and muskets

Special unit 2: Polish legions

Spoiler :

Like musketman, have 3 movements and +20% when fights in allied lands

Trait: Commonwealth, +1 culture and +1 faith per 5 happy citizen
Objectives: Ocupe Lithuanian before 1700
Can't lose any city to russian armies
Ocupe Danzig (Gdańsk) from 1915 to 1930

 

[mitsho]

If I had to leave out two of the major civs from your list above, I'd vote Vikings and Korea since these two are already in a region with high civ activity while the other allow for different gameplay. I could even see adding an Indonesia to compete with Siam for more geographical balance...

How many places for minor civs do we have? Because your list seems to be lacking in Africa (Mali/Songhai, Kongo, Nigeria, Boers/Zulu) and India/South East Asia (Pakistan/Afghanistan, Chola, Moghul (?), Majapahit/Indonesia). I'd also think Argentinia would be a possibility.

 

[dagriggstar]

I would keep the Vikings as they are the most "flexible" if you like of those civs you mentioned potentially not having. I mean, they can always turn into pseudo-Sweden later on in the game.

Songhai I went into why I think they should be left out in the other thread. They just have such a limited impact on other civs it's too much like playing by yourself

Siam/Ethiopia/Korea all strike me as one-city-challenge "civs". Siam and Ethiopia both strike me as the two I'd like to play most there. Siam is only interesting if you surround them with CS, who they need to manipulate to avoid being conquered yourself. Ethiopia would have the longest game of all the one city challenge civs, but then you are just surviving Egypt (early), Arabs (middle) and Europeans (late).

Like I said I'd like to see the Mongolia slot better used, because their empire lasted so few years in reality. I suppose you could use them as pseudo-Timurids later on in the game though, which would give India something else to do (they always seem so isolated)

Which CS are picked should really reflect what you want to happen in the scenario. For example, if you wanted to focus on the "scramble for africa" you probably have an Oman as a CS (sold Mombasa to British, Mogadishu to Italy, Dar es Salaam to Germany). But if you want to focus on "the great game" then you need at least one, possibly two central Asian khanates (Bukhara, Kokand, Khiva) and Afghanistan (which you should probably have anyway). If you want to make Siam more interesting (and depending on when you want to Siam to spawn) then you have Majapahit (Indonesia), Khmer, Vietnam, Burma.

I could go on with CS possibilities all day...

 

[Catalonia]

AUSTRIA_HUNGARY and BYZANTIUM as CS??? Austria can be Germany, but at 1800 mor or less can be Prussia and convert Viena to a city state.

Byzantium is important, more than Vikings, Songhai, Siam, Korea and Ethiopia

 

[hoplitejoe]

Austria can be Germany

Dat irony.

As for the choice between Vikings,Songhai,Siam,Korea and Ethiopia, I would definitely not include Korea as they controlled so little land, and would only really act as something for a player as China or Japan to invade.
To choose between the remaining Civ's is harder. I would probably get rid of Ethiopia, there importance seems overhyped due to them being a Christian nation.

The remaining 3 are even harder to choose from as they would all look weird without a nation where they should be, but for gameplay reasons, the Shongai are probably better to leave out than the others (a Mali game can be pretty dull in IV).

 

[Catalonia]

Dat irony.

?

Germany was created at 1871, and before were the Holly Roman Empire, Austria, Prusia...

 

[corovanrobber]

In the main civs, I still have some doubts about what to leave out 2 between Vikings/Songhai/Siam/Korea/Ethiopia(Songhai renamed)

I'd suggest leaving Africa empty and pick Siam and Vikings. Korean issue is their relalively low influence outside their core land and perhaps historically they should stay as a CS. No playable civ for far eastern Asia won't hurt as empty Scandinavia and south-eastern Asia.

 

[hoplitejoe]

Egypt is in Africa

 

[Imperator101]

byzantium shouldnt be a minor civ as it was argueably the most influential and strategically important state between the fall of rome and late crusading era

 

[Megashadow41]

IMO Africa seems totally empty until European colonies and the Arabs, I think there shouls be city-states like repersenting Songhai or Mali, since their not in the game, and there should be city-states repersenting pre- Europe imperialism.

 

[Bonci]

The problem I see with byzantium is that it's hardly an original civilization...I think they could be better represented using the roman slot. Or even the greek one.
But I'd prefer them as a minor civ.

 

[Androrc the Orc]

I suggested that "Austria" be used instead of the name "Austria-Hungary", considering that the Empire of Austria included Hungary anyhow, that it would be a simpler name, that it would be the name of the civilization already in the game, and finally, a name that can refer to the Habsburg empire centered in Vienna regardless of era, while "Austria-Hungary" is extremely specific and only covers the 1867-1918 (51 years). Even just the period of the "Empire of Austria" lasted longer (63 years).

The problem I see with byzantium is that it's hardly an original civilization...I think they could be better represented using the roman slot. Or even the greek one.
But I'd prefer them as a minor civ.

I agree

 

[mitsho]

byzantium is - in RFC terms! - just a reborn Greece with a different capital. RFC Civilizations tend to be more like amalgams and span most of the game. Egypt can become independent (not the civs) again in the Modern Age, doesn't mean it's pharaonic Egypt! Byzantium spawning as a city state on any collapsing empire in the region seems fairly accurate and works for gameplay I guess.

The reasonings for no Songhai/Mali (no fun gameplay) seem fairly accurate. You wouldn't be able to do much and a few city states in the region ready to trade their "slave ressource" away might work much better. So you got me convinced in cutting that civ. Still think representing the Vikings as barbarians works well for Northern Europe. City States work well for the intra-european tasks there. Though I'm not sure what do about the colonial tasks of Portugal/Netherlands since these two span quite a large part of the globe by themselves.