wr4th
Warlord
You should realy read the post again, he proposed to change great prophets so they can be used as popes to gain control over the AP. But anyway i dont think that a pope is under the influence of his former nation (civ).
Rhyes of Europe?
- Thread starter ltccone
- Start date
Zhuge_Liang
The greatest strategist
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 734
Like the last pope before Benedict.............. He came from Poland(I think) so LuKo, be proud of it.
Squirrelloid
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 263
Two major idea areas:
Technology Acquisition
Something I've been thinking about for awhile is an alternate "technology acquisition" method. The problem with Civ style research is its really inaccurate. Technology, especially pre-modern technology, is really hard to control. It diffuses across country borders trivially. Further, new technology is rarely intentionally researched before the modern period - instead its the result of one person somewhere trying something new and having it work.
So, two models:
(1): Countries research technology as in standard civ, but once a technology is researched it spreads to nearby countries. So a country far away may encounter drastically different units, but nearby (connection-wise) countries are rarely far ahead of each other technologically. (Possibly the discovery is located in one city, and cities can only take advantage of it if it spreads to them - but that strikes me as a bookkeeping and logistical pain). The rate of spread of individual technologies could presumably be tweaked.
(2): Technology spreads as in model 1, but rather than countries directing research, new technologies appear as events, and are gifted to the owner(s) of the area in which the technology historically arose (as best as we can determine). (In many cases this is going to be "from china via trade routes through asia", and the technology appears in the east and spreads westward). This removes technological advancement from the purview of the player - now, it may not be necessary to replace it; lack of technological commerce spending may just translate into higher espionage spending in a BTS environment, and more readily available cash. Might also want to implement the culture slider from the get-go if you implement option 2.
Or perhaps the "research" slider dictates the likelihood that a technology originates in your country, and technology spawn location is some weighted combination of historical location and civ 'investment in education'. (All else being equal, techs tend to spawn where they historically first appeared, but civs that invest heavily in an educated populace will occasionally get a non-historical tech spawn in their area). Investing in education could also increase the rate at which you acquire tech from your neighbors. I have no idea how hard such a change would be to implement.
Model 2 is both the farthest from standard civ SOP, but also the closest to the historical reality. Both of them should fix what I find most annoying about most civ games - generally the player or some computers are so far ahead of everyone else that they dominate them. RFC just makes it more likely its a few computers that are ahead, it doesn't seem to change the general pattern. Basically, under Civ's current model the rate of tech acquisition is far too susceptible to player/computer choice, so enough better choices put you so far ahead the others can never catch up. When was the last time you played a game where two equal-tech armies fought each other? The closest i've ever been after the ancient era was my tanks, marines, and paratroopers vs. their infantry, and I rolled out mech infantry not too long into the war.
Anyway, that's an idea - take it or leave it.
Combat Model
So, historically, the following model has generally been true given equally trained forces.
Heavy Infantry > Heavy Cavalry
Light Infantry > Heavy Infantry, Light Cavalry
Heavy Cavalry > Light Infantry
Light Cavalry > Heavy Infantry, Heavy Cavalry
Reason:
If you're riding a horse, you're fundamentally concentrating on two things: (1) using a weapon and (2) riding the horse. The person on the ground in the same role as you can do that role better because they can devote all their attention to it.
Light (ie, ranged) units are superior to heavy (shock/melee) units of the same type because running away is easier than engaging. So a unit of rhodian slingers can run from a greek phalanx, and when the phalanx stops they can turn around and sling stones at them again. The premiere historical examples of this are the muslim light cavalry vs. the crusader heavy cavalry during the crusades.
Mounted units are faster than infantry, so infantry cannot run away from cavalry. If heavy units can close, they are superior to light units in close combat. (Ie, light infantry shouldn't beat heavy cavalry barring special circumstances, like heavily wooded terrain). However, because running away is easier, heavy units typically cannot close with light units of the same type (infantry or cavalry).
Now, historically Europe in the medieval period didn't field a professional infantry for two reasons: (1) all the nobles (who were the professional military) were trained as mounted troops and (2) the stirrup allowed the lance to dominate cavalry - infantry engagements until the rediscovery of 'pike' weapons in the 1300s.
This has some consequences in terms of expected unit performance (and unit *existence*) which aren't met in the current civ4 game.
(1) Heavy Cavalry should get a bonus against archer units.
(2) There should be a 'knight' level light cavalry unit, and it should perform quite differently than the equal tech level heavy cavalry. (Bonus vs. heavy infantry and heavy cavalry).
(3) Heavy infantry should get a bonus against heavy cavalry. Light infantry should get a bonus against light cavalry and heavy infantry (although one might imagine first strikes are *supposed* to be that, they aren't very effective until you get up to Drill III/IV).
Finally, three other things should be noted about military units in the relevant periods:
(1) heavy infantry with spears are at a disadvantage against heavy infantry with shorter weapons. This is why the Roman Legionaires annihilated the greek phalanx. This is vaguely represented by the maceman/axeman +50% vs. melee, except they also get the bonus relative to swordsmen, which they shouldn't. More amusingly, the Roman Legionaire gets no such bonus.
(2) Cavalry could and would dismount to defend when it was advantageous. Thus mounted units should always get terrain bonuses, but should count as the appropriate infantry type in defensive terrain. (probably the computer should figure out whether it would do better as heavy cavalry without terrain bonus, or heavy infantry with terrain bonus in the case of a heavy cavalry unit, and use the more favorable version).
(3) The quality of light infantry has historically depended on their degree of preparation. As for most of the middle ages europe used conscripted serfs or peasants as infantry, most infantry was rather poorly trained. The exception to this is the english longbowmen, who through the english crown's funding of archery contests were a well-trained force and therefore contributed spectacularly (notably Agincourt, for instance). To adequately represent european medieval military units, you really need to find some way of representing a cadre of well-trained noble lords as cavalry, and seasonally conscripted peasant infantry.
Here's a thought: In a feudal society (presumably what everyone starts with - and there should be commensurate advantages to this disadvantage) the civ is limited to some number of cavalry units per city they own. These units retain xp normally. They can also build infantry units but they start with no xp and cannot earn xp. Possibly to represent training you could (in conjunction with my tech suggestion) replace the research slider with a "military preparations" slider which effects how much xp new infantry units start with (they still cannot earn xp). The barracks building should be moved to a later tech (it really should be anyway...), and these disadvantages (and any corresponding advantages) go away when better government forms are adopted. One possible advantage could be a feudal civ pays no upkeep for units, regardless of how many they have.
On siege weapons:
The trebuchet actually predates the catapult. Trebuchet were in use in the siege of Rome by the visigoths. The modern conception of a catapult post-dates that. (The Roman equivalent wasn't suited to the northern european climate, and the technology was forgotten for over a thousand years - i believe only reconstructed recently based on roman writings). Of course, cannon predate the use of personal firearms by a few hundred years - the first known military cannon was used during a siege in the early 13th century, I want to say 1226, about 200 years before anything resembling a handheld firearm was seen. There should probably be two distinct cannon units representing medieval siege equipment and renaissance siege equipment respectively.
Technology Acquisition
Something I've been thinking about for awhile is an alternate "technology acquisition" method. The problem with Civ style research is its really inaccurate. Technology, especially pre-modern technology, is really hard to control. It diffuses across country borders trivially. Further, new technology is rarely intentionally researched before the modern period - instead its the result of one person somewhere trying something new and having it work.
So, two models:
(1): Countries research technology as in standard civ, but once a technology is researched it spreads to nearby countries. So a country far away may encounter drastically different units, but nearby (connection-wise) countries are rarely far ahead of each other technologically. (Possibly the discovery is located in one city, and cities can only take advantage of it if it spreads to them - but that strikes me as a bookkeeping and logistical pain). The rate of spread of individual technologies could presumably be tweaked.
(2): Technology spreads as in model 1, but rather than countries directing research, new technologies appear as events, and are gifted to the owner(s) of the area in which the technology historically arose (as best as we can determine). (In many cases this is going to be "from china via trade routes through asia", and the technology appears in the east and spreads westward). This removes technological advancement from the purview of the player - now, it may not be necessary to replace it; lack of technological commerce spending may just translate into higher espionage spending in a BTS environment, and more readily available cash. Might also want to implement the culture slider from the get-go if you implement option 2.
Or perhaps the "research" slider dictates the likelihood that a technology originates in your country, and technology spawn location is some weighted combination of historical location and civ 'investment in education'. (All else being equal, techs tend to spawn where they historically first appeared, but civs that invest heavily in an educated populace will occasionally get a non-historical tech spawn in their area). Investing in education could also increase the rate at which you acquire tech from your neighbors. I have no idea how hard such a change would be to implement.
Model 2 is both the farthest from standard civ SOP, but also the closest to the historical reality. Both of them should fix what I find most annoying about most civ games - generally the player or some computers are so far ahead of everyone else that they dominate them. RFC just makes it more likely its a few computers that are ahead, it doesn't seem to change the general pattern. Basically, under Civ's current model the rate of tech acquisition is far too susceptible to player/computer choice, so enough better choices put you so far ahead the others can never catch up. When was the last time you played a game where two equal-tech armies fought each other? The closest i've ever been after the ancient era was my tanks, marines, and paratroopers vs. their infantry, and I rolled out mech infantry not too long into the war.
Anyway, that's an idea - take it or leave it.
Combat Model
So, historically, the following model has generally been true given equally trained forces.
Heavy Infantry > Heavy Cavalry
Light Infantry > Heavy Infantry, Light Cavalry
Heavy Cavalry > Light Infantry
Light Cavalry > Heavy Infantry, Heavy Cavalry
Reason:
If you're riding a horse, you're fundamentally concentrating on two things: (1) using a weapon and (2) riding the horse. The person on the ground in the same role as you can do that role better because they can devote all their attention to it.
Light (ie, ranged) units are superior to heavy (shock/melee) units of the same type because running away is easier than engaging. So a unit of rhodian slingers can run from a greek phalanx, and when the phalanx stops they can turn around and sling stones at them again. The premiere historical examples of this are the muslim light cavalry vs. the crusader heavy cavalry during the crusades.
Mounted units are faster than infantry, so infantry cannot run away from cavalry. If heavy units can close, they are superior to light units in close combat. (Ie, light infantry shouldn't beat heavy cavalry barring special circumstances, like heavily wooded terrain). However, because running away is easier, heavy units typically cannot close with light units of the same type (infantry or cavalry).
Now, historically Europe in the medieval period didn't field a professional infantry for two reasons: (1) all the nobles (who were the professional military) were trained as mounted troops and (2) the stirrup allowed the lance to dominate cavalry - infantry engagements until the rediscovery of 'pike' weapons in the 1300s.
This has some consequences in terms of expected unit performance (and unit *existence*) which aren't met in the current civ4 game.
(1) Heavy Cavalry should get a bonus against archer units.
(2) There should be a 'knight' level light cavalry unit, and it should perform quite differently than the equal tech level heavy cavalry. (Bonus vs. heavy infantry and heavy cavalry).
(3) Heavy infantry should get a bonus against heavy cavalry. Light infantry should get a bonus against light cavalry and heavy infantry (although one might imagine first strikes are *supposed* to be that, they aren't very effective until you get up to Drill III/IV).
Finally, three other things should be noted about military units in the relevant periods:
(1) heavy infantry with spears are at a disadvantage against heavy infantry with shorter weapons. This is why the Roman Legionaires annihilated the greek phalanx. This is vaguely represented by the maceman/axeman +50% vs. melee, except they also get the bonus relative to swordsmen, which they shouldn't. More amusingly, the Roman Legionaire gets no such bonus.
(2) Cavalry could and would dismount to defend when it was advantageous. Thus mounted units should always get terrain bonuses, but should count as the appropriate infantry type in defensive terrain. (probably the computer should figure out whether it would do better as heavy cavalry without terrain bonus, or heavy infantry with terrain bonus in the case of a heavy cavalry unit, and use the more favorable version).
(3) The quality of light infantry has historically depended on their degree of preparation. As for most of the middle ages europe used conscripted serfs or peasants as infantry, most infantry was rather poorly trained. The exception to this is the english longbowmen, who through the english crown's funding of archery contests were a well-trained force and therefore contributed spectacularly (notably Agincourt, for instance). To adequately represent european medieval military units, you really need to find some way of representing a cadre of well-trained noble lords as cavalry, and seasonally conscripted peasant infantry.
Here's a thought: In a feudal society (presumably what everyone starts with - and there should be commensurate advantages to this disadvantage) the civ is limited to some number of cavalry units per city they own. These units retain xp normally. They can also build infantry units but they start with no xp and cannot earn xp. Possibly to represent training you could (in conjunction with my tech suggestion) replace the research slider with a "military preparations" slider which effects how much xp new infantry units start with (they still cannot earn xp). The barracks building should be moved to a later tech (it really should be anyway...), and these disadvantages (and any corresponding advantages) go away when better government forms are adopted. One possible advantage could be a feudal civ pays no upkeep for units, regardless of how many they have.
On siege weapons:
The trebuchet actually predates the catapult. Trebuchet were in use in the siege of Rome by the visigoths. The modern conception of a catapult post-dates that. (The Roman equivalent wasn't suited to the northern european climate, and the technology was forgotten for over a thousand years - i believe only reconstructed recently based on roman writings). Of course, cannon predate the use of personal firearms by a few hundred years - the first known military cannon was used during a siege in the early 13th century, I want to say 1226, about 200 years before anything resembling a handheld firearm was seen. There should probably be two distinct cannon units representing medieval siege equipment and renaissance siege equipment respectively.
st.lucifer
King
This is exactly the point of my idea. Had you bothered to read or try to understand my post before attacking it, you might have actually agreed with me.
While I like the idea of the Apostolic Palace, I don't think it accurately reflects how the papacy has actually worked over the centuries. My suggestion was a method of balancing this, by having different countries control the papacy not by conquering Rome, but by having a citizen hold the office. Yes, Poland never controlled or had designs on Rome - we're not idiots - but the last pope was Polish, and despite the advent of mass media, was an extremely important political figure. I'm flexible on the idea of the AP being available for any civ to build, but I don't think that the building civ should be more or less guaranteed control of its direction any more than America controls the direction of the UN. Control of the AP passing from civ to civ with successive popes would make it a much more powerful factor in the game. It would also create a use for great prophets, which will be significantly less useful in a mod where the religions are discovered and the shrines built.
And yes, I know that there can't be 4 UHV's. Again, I am not completely ******ed - I am just aware that one of my proposed UHV's would require a total rewrite of the AP functions and GPs, which I am not personally capable of coding. Recognizing that this idea might be less attractive because of the extra work involved, I suggested a fourth option. I was under the impression that we were looking for ideas, and I don't think that any one person is likely to have all of the ideas for one civ - no matter how fanatically devoted we are to our personal crusades.
What do people think of the AP idea?
wr4th
Warlord
I completely disagree with you in that point. I think the way it is now reflects the historical way much more than your proposal.
In the middle ages the pope was always deciding in the favor of the HRE and that's not because he came from there (actually they were pretty much all italian/roman), no he did that because he was protected by the emperor and his troops. In civ terms HRE controlled rome militarily, and thus controlled the decisions of the AP.
And in modern times i think that john paul II was never influenced by polish decisions, so is benedict not driven by german interests. They just decide completely free.
In civ terms its not a big achievement to send the pope, its just a personal achievement by the one with little pay of for his home country (despite the prestige, and maybe that only after nationalism).
st.lucifer
King
While you can make the argument that the papcy primarily served the interests of the HRE for the reasons you list above, I think that describes the papacy mostly in the dark ages and early middle ages. During the renaissance era, the papacy became a much more powerful political tool - think of the Borgia popes, and the amount of scheming that went on whenever a new pope was to be elected. The antipopes of Avignon, while earlier, are another possible argument for this case.
I think it's too early to see Benedict's agenda, but I'd argue that John Paul II did advocate for Polish interests, in particular through his opposition to communism and the USSR. While there were obvious religious interests at work there, I don't think that a pope from, say, Italy would have been as staunchly anti-communist.
I'd agree that in modern times, having the pope come from one's country is more a matter of prestige and personal achievement than an exercise in hard political power, but I think that in previous centuries it was a big deal - and the number of people (and popes) killed in the service of installing popes friendly to certain political interests bear that out.
Thank you for your coherent and well-reasoned opinion.
Squirrelloid
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 263
Regardless of its historicity, I like the suggestion that GPs can take control of the AP. I think it would lead to some rather interesting gameplay. However, there should be a time limit (so as GP generation costs go up the length of control doesn't increase markedly, because then the human player will just horde GPs until the computer stops generating them as quickly). In fact, there should probably be a minimum and a maximum length of control. So you get, say, at least 15 and at most 45 turns as Pope per GP. If no GP gets spent before your maximum, normal elections get held (and the results have a minimum duration before anyone can steal it with a GP). More passing of the AP around will lead to more interesting gameplay.
I also think the AP should start built in Rome. A lot of conflict should be based around the decisions and control of the AP, and the best way to do that is to have it start in the game in neutral territory. (Also, making sure the AP is catholic is important - wouldn't want Lithuanian pagans building it, now would we?)
I'm curious what people thought of my suggestions above. I can also make a large number of suggestions for military techs - i just need to know how far outside the actual time period do you want me to look for techs. (mostly: do we want people to be able to get more advanced than anyone actually was by the end of the scenario). I've got a pretty good handle on how changing military technology effected unit performance through about the napoleonic wars, so its just a question of how far forward would you like suggestions. (I'll start compiling a list shortly).
I also think the AP should start built in Rome. A lot of conflict should be based around the decisions and control of the AP, and the best way to do that is to have it start in the game in neutral territory. (Also, making sure the AP is catholic is important - wouldn't want Lithuanian pagans building it, now would we?)
I'm curious what people thought of my suggestions above. I can also make a large number of suggestions for military techs - i just need to know how far outside the actual time period do you want me to look for techs. (mostly: do we want people to be able to get more advanced than anyone actually was by the end of the scenario). I've got a pretty good handle on how changing military technology effected unit performance through about the napoleonic wars, so its just a question of how far forward would you like suggestions. (I'll start compiling a list shortly).
Vince-G
Chieftain
My modest proposal for Hungary:
Hungarian Empire
Start date 890 AD
UHV
* Never lose a city to the Golden Horde, the House of Habsburg or the Ottomans until 1650.
* Control or vassalize Poland and the House of Habsburg by 1490.
* Make Pest-Buda the most cultured city in Europe by 1700.
UP
National Fervor
Extra +1 happy from Barracks.
EDIT: I suppose I should also mention Pest-Buda was a more accepted name for Buda and Pest until - I think - the 19th century.
Hungarian Empire
Start date 890 AD
UHV
* Never lose a city to the Golden Horde, the House of Habsburg or the Ottomans until 1650.
* Control or vassalize Poland and the House of Habsburg by 1490.
* Make Pest-Buda the most cultured city in Europe by 1700.
UP
National Fervor
Extra +1 happy from Barracks.
EDIT: I suppose I should also mention Pest-Buda was a more accepted name for Buda and Pest until - I think - the 19th century.
st.lucifer
King
This idea does sound like a more accurate representation of how technology is discovered and spreads (or at least did pre-modern era), but I think I'd be very frustrated relying on essentially random events for tech progress. I do think that it would be interesting to see technology transfered through military conflict (like the battle of the talas river in 751, which transferred chinese paper-making technology to the arab and then the western world); if I remember right, you got tech from taking foreign cities in civ 1 and maybe civ 2 (although it's been years since i've played either.) However, implementing this would provide more incentive for warmongering, which hardly needs the help. While flawed, I think the current tech system is probably better than more randomized alternatives. I do wish that RFC prohibited tech brokering, or at least supported a more fair tech trading system, but I can't think of anything in the universe that runs exactly as I'd want it to.
I think that your argument on combat strengths depends too heavily on retreat and manuverability - light infantry is superior to heavy infantry if the heavy infantry can't close, but if that light infantry is defending a specific area, they're limited in their ability to retreat. I believe that in the Alexander mod for warlords, the light units (peltasts) had flanking and first strikes built in, but they were also much weaker, which made for a good balance. I think that some of your suggestions re: feudalism and standing armies are good - I don't know how a sort of seasonal conscription would work, but I think it's a good (and again, accurate) idea. Perhaps it would be possible to conscript units (before nationalism) which are available for a limited number of terms (3-5?5-10? some randomization is desirable?), which are slightly weaker than their professional counterparts would be?
I've never understood why swordsmen would get a bonus towards attacking cities (and not relative to other melee units) - it would seem like archers or crossbows would be more effective in siege.
For an intermediate siege unit, what about a bombard as the earliest form of gunpowder-based weaponry (available with gunpowder, strength 9?) and cannon becoming available with rifling (power 12 or 14, but very vulnerable on defense?) Should muskets really be available immediately upon the discovery of gunpowder?
Vince-G
Chieftain
Notice
I've received Rhye's sanction to - in the absence of Whitefire - "have a coup" and take over the running of the scenario. If Whitefire comes back then I'll cede back to him. So - any suggestions will be appreciated
At the moment I'm reviewing the civilizations: their UHVs and UPs.
I've received Rhye's sanction to - in the absence of Whitefire - "have a coup" and take over the running of the scenario. If Whitefire comes back then I'll cede back to him. So - any suggestions will be appreciated
At the moment I'm reviewing the civilizations: their UHVs and UPs.
mitsho
Deity
Maps: Europe without northen top (reaching til about Trondheim? without Island), with Maghreb, stopping somewhere in Anatolia. More would not be Europe and too many civs, Ottomans are still powerful enough)
So what Civs do you want to have?
Possible:
Portugal
Spain/Castille/Catalunya
France
England,
Scotland
Ireland
Wales
Burgundy
Netherlands
Belgium
Switzerland
Italy versus Venice/Genoa/Firenze/Roma/Sicily?
Austria
Hungary
Prussia, Bavaria or HRE?
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Island
Finland
Russia
Lithuania
Poland
Czechia/Bohemia
Romania
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Serbia/Bosnia/Slovenia/Croatia
Albania
Greece/Byzantium
Turkey
Maghreb/Morocco/Almoravids
Algeria/Tunisia
Mongols
Independents
Barbarians
That makes 36 civs plus. Way too many. Thus different approach, dividing up into theatres, then looking at every theatre alone looking where a cut is possible?
Theatre A: Iberia/Maghreb: Castille + Portugal + Independents (Catalunya/Tunisia/etc. ...) versus Almoravids (3 civs)
Theatre B: France: France versus Burgundy versus England versus Lowlands (3 civs)
Theatre C: Great Britain: England + Scotland + Ireland + Denmark + Independents (Wales) (3 civs)
Theatre D: Scandinavia: Denmark + Norway + Sweden (3 civs)
Theatre E: HRE: Prussia + Austria + Switzerland + Lowlands + Independents (4 civs)
Theatre F: Italy: Rome + Venice + Genoa + Independents (3 civs)
Theatre G: North East: Finland + Russia + Lithuania + Independents (Teutonic Order) (3 civs)
Theatre H: Middle: Poland + Lithuania + Independents (Teutonic Order) + Hungary + Romania + Ukraine/Moravia (4 civs)
Theatre I: Balcan and Anatolia: Serbia + Bulgaria + Albania + Byzantium/Greece (Problem on shifting Capital!) + Ottomans/Turks (5 civs)
Chronology:
Phase I: Consolidation of the states, coding of some civs joining together/Melting (possible somehow or doe that need another civ?): Until ~1500
--> How do we solve the problems of Italy versus Genoa, Firenze, Papal States, Venice // Spain versus Castille, Leon, etc. ... // Germany versus Prussia, Bavaria, Austria (Grossdeutsche Lösung possible?)
Phase II: Theatres get bigger/joined, Europe one theatre: Until 1850
Phase III: Industrialisation + European Civil Wars (WWI + II)
Events! (historical things not absolutely on map, scripted)
- Mongol attacks
- Discovery of America
- Crusades
- Reformation
- Polish Divisions
- Congresses/dynastical wars
- nationalism
...
So which civs would you cut?
So what Civs do you want to have?
Possible:
Portugal
Spain/Castille/Catalunya
France
England,
Scotland
Ireland
Wales
Burgundy
Netherlands
Belgium
Switzerland
Italy versus Venice/Genoa/Firenze/Roma/Sicily?
Austria
Hungary
Prussia, Bavaria or HRE?
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
Island
Finland
Russia
Lithuania
Poland
Czechia/Bohemia
Romania
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Serbia/Bosnia/Slovenia/Croatia
Albania
Greece/Byzantium
Turkey
Maghreb/Morocco/Almoravids
Algeria/Tunisia
Mongols
Independents
Barbarians
That makes 36 civs plus. Way too many. Thus different approach, dividing up into theatres, then looking at every theatre alone looking where a cut is possible?
Theatre A: Iberia/Maghreb: Castille + Portugal + Independents (Catalunya/Tunisia/etc. ...) versus Almoravids (3 civs)
Theatre B: France: France versus Burgundy versus England versus Lowlands (3 civs)
Theatre C: Great Britain: England + Scotland + Ireland + Denmark + Independents (Wales) (3 civs)
Theatre D: Scandinavia: Denmark + Norway + Sweden (3 civs)
Theatre E: HRE: Prussia + Austria + Switzerland + Lowlands + Independents (4 civs)
Theatre F: Italy: Rome + Venice + Genoa + Independents (3 civs)
Theatre G: North East: Finland + Russia + Lithuania + Independents (Teutonic Order) (3 civs)
Theatre H: Middle: Poland + Lithuania + Independents (Teutonic Order) + Hungary + Romania + Ukraine/Moravia (4 civs)
Theatre I: Balcan and Anatolia: Serbia + Bulgaria + Albania + Byzantium/Greece (Problem on shifting Capital!) + Ottomans/Turks (5 civs)
Chronology:
Phase I: Consolidation of the states, coding of some civs joining together/Melting (possible somehow or doe that need another civ?): Until ~1500
--> How do we solve the problems of Italy versus Genoa, Firenze, Papal States, Venice // Spain versus Castille, Leon, etc. ... // Germany versus Prussia, Bavaria, Austria (Grossdeutsche Lösung possible?)
Phase II: Theatres get bigger/joined, Europe one theatre: Until 1850
Phase III: Industrialisation + European Civil Wars (WWI + II)
Events! (historical things not absolutely on map, scripted)
- Mongol attacks
- Discovery of America
- Crusades
- Reformation
- Polish Divisions
- Congresses/dynastical wars
- nationalism
...
So which civs would you cut?
Vince-G
Chieftain
Well let's see. I think we need to cull the civs based on their fame and glory.
I'll warn you in advance that I'm going to be utterly merciless in this post, so no offence to any RL members of civs I call irrelevant
Theatre A: No problems here.
Theatre B: Burgundy can be an independent really. Its period of meaningful existence wasn't terribly long, it's definitely not going to be a played civ and I don't see any reason for it being a major civ just so bored players of France can talk to it.
Theatre C: Scotland and Ireland can be made independents. I hope I'm not offending any Scots and Irish by saying this, but I think given their comparative size and importance in the long run of post-Roman European history, I think it's safe to say that in the interests of gameplay they can be independent. We can cull down Great Britain to just have 1 civ: the English/British.
Theatre D: Should Denmark and Norway be separate civs? I think grouping them under "Danes" or "Vikings" in the early game at least, even "Scandinavians" would work better for gameplay. Again: independentize the less important factions!
Theatre E: No change needed.
Theatre F: Rome -> Papal States depending on start date. Otherwise I don't see any change needed.
Theatre G: Oooh, this is a hard one. One part of me says no, but the other part tells me Lithuania should be made an independent. Its period of greatest power - in my opinion anyway - was when it was merged with Poland and so it doesn't really need to exist. And plus it becomes Russia pretty soon.
Theatre H: Okay, culling holy war here. I don't think Romania needs a separate civ - most of it was part of Hungary anyway and the rest wasn't terribly important. Independent! Ukraine was part of Russia for almost all of its existence, and its importance when it wasn't was frankly minor. They were just Russians who weren't conquered by the Mongols! Independent! (Same goes for Moravia.) Lithunia - with the doubt I said in Theatre G - independent! Poland and Hungary - stay and be played.
Theatre I: Albania can be made independent, it wasn't very important (although I'm not too read up on Dark-Age Europe so feel free to force-feed me my words). Other than that, yes.
That still leaves the civ count at 24. More culling may be needed for the game to be played reasonably.
I'll reply in detail to the other two parts of your post in a bit, but I think we can do the melting together of civs by having the less powerful civ(s) "defect" into the most powerful of the civs and this powerful civ will have its name changed.
I'll warn you in advance that I'm going to be utterly merciless in this post, so no offence to any RL members of civs I call irrelevant
Theatre A: No problems here.
Theatre B: Burgundy can be an independent really. Its period of meaningful existence wasn't terribly long, it's definitely not going to be a played civ and I don't see any reason for it being a major civ just so bored players of France can talk to it.
Theatre C: Scotland and Ireland can be made independents. I hope I'm not offending any Scots and Irish by saying this, but I think given their comparative size and importance in the long run of post-Roman European history, I think it's safe to say that in the interests of gameplay they can be independent. We can cull down Great Britain to just have 1 civ: the English/British.
Theatre D: Should Denmark and Norway be separate civs? I think grouping them under "Danes" or "Vikings" in the early game at least, even "Scandinavians" would work better for gameplay. Again: independentize the less important factions!
Theatre E: No change needed.
Theatre F: Rome -> Papal States depending on start date. Otherwise I don't see any change needed.
Theatre G: Oooh, this is a hard one. One part of me says no, but the other part tells me Lithuania should be made an independent. Its period of greatest power - in my opinion anyway - was when it was merged with Poland and so it doesn't really need to exist. And plus it becomes Russia pretty soon.
Theatre H: Okay, culling holy war here. I don't think Romania needs a separate civ - most of it was part of Hungary anyway and the rest wasn't terribly important. Independent! Ukraine was part of Russia for almost all of its existence, and its importance when it wasn't was frankly minor. They were just Russians who weren't conquered by the Mongols! Independent! (Same goes for Moravia.) Lithunia - with the doubt I said in Theatre G - independent! Poland and Hungary - stay and be played.
Theatre I: Albania can be made independent, it wasn't very important (although I'm not too read up on Dark-Age Europe so feel free to force-feed me my words). Other than that, yes.
That still leaves the civ count at 24. More culling may be needed for the game to be played reasonably.
I'll reply in detail to the other two parts of your post in a bit, but I think we can do the melting together of civs by having the less powerful civ(s) "defect" into the most powerful of the civs and this powerful civ will have its name changed.
But if they're playable, one of the objectives for the player would be to not be absorbed and create a great nation out of one that wouldn't be historically, thus creating an interesting game for the player. (And I don't mean that for a UHV, just something the player would have to do)
Vince-G
Chieftain
I think the question really is balancing how many people are realistically going to want to play Burgundy etc. against the fact that having 36+ civs is a bit much, would take too long to code and so on.
mitsho
Deity
Ok, I must admit I just summed up the national states mostly in Eastern Europe as I do not know terribly much about these... 
I agree that having the most powerful civ change its name is probably the best idea...
About Burgundy: My idea was that France needs a counterplayer and Burgundy was really close to becoming a modern nation state, it was only stopped by a "unholy" coalition of the French King with every one of Burgundys neighbours (Switzerland, Habsburg) and having its king die in battle without a (male!) successor. Otherwise, history might have been totally different...
About Russia: If we stay with your civs, we really need to balance the map accordingly. Make Russia big and unproductive... (less ressources) Otherwise I see it becoming way too powerful.
About Scandinavia: Agree with leaving Norway off... Early game it belongs to Denmark, afterwards to Sweden. Fine!
About theatre F: What about Replacing Genoa with Firenze? Both were powerful, but with Venice we have a sea power already and perhaps something to counter HRE or Swiss influence in Northern Italy (Milano?). or combining them?
About Lithuania: Ok, leave it out. But I would let it on top of the list of the civs to get included when we have place...
Further Problems:
- Religious Wars (Thirty Years)
- Economic dependance of colonies
- TPA!! Temporary Permament Alliances (I know...): Poland-Lithuania, Calmar Union, Holy Roman Empire, Austria-Hungary, The Habsburg Empire (Austria and Spain?!) -->
- Dynasties... Especially: Habsburgs, Medicis, Bourbons
I quickly made a map with your civs (22 playable + Indies + barbs):
(Yes, Cyprus should be on it perhaps...)
What I see:
- A big hole in the East. Problem?! --> map tweaking
- England and France have large swaths of land to their disposal to conquer first (Indies), in Spain, Germany, Italy and Balcans on the other hand, we have many civs battling over land. Does this unbalance the game?
mfG m
I agree that having the most powerful civ change its name is probably the best idea...
About Burgundy: My idea was that France needs a counterplayer and Burgundy was really close to becoming a modern nation state, it was only stopped by a "unholy" coalition of the French King with every one of Burgundys neighbours (Switzerland, Habsburg) and having its king die in battle without a (male!) successor. Otherwise, history might have been totally different...
About Russia: If we stay with your civs, we really need to balance the map accordingly. Make Russia big and unproductive... (less ressources) Otherwise I see it becoming way too powerful.
About Scandinavia: Agree with leaving Norway off... Early game it belongs to Denmark, afterwards to Sweden. Fine!
About theatre F: What about Replacing Genoa with Firenze? Both were powerful, but with Venice we have a sea power already and perhaps something to counter HRE or Swiss influence in Northern Italy (Milano?). or combining them?
About Lithuania: Ok, leave it out. But I would let it on top of the list of the civs to get included when we have place...
Further Problems:
- Religious Wars (Thirty Years)
- Economic dependance of colonies
- TPA!! Temporary Permament Alliances (I know...
): Poland-Lithuania, Calmar Union, Holy Roman Empire, Austria-Hungary, The Habsburg Empire (Austria and Spain?!) -->- Dynasties... Especially: Habsburgs, Medicis, Bourbons
I quickly made a map with your civs (22 playable + Indies + barbs):
(Yes, Cyprus should be on it perhaps...)
What I see:
- A big hole in the East. Problem?! --> map tweaking
- England and France have large swaths of land to their disposal to conquer first (Indies), in Spain, Germany, Italy and Balcans on the other hand, we have many civs battling over land. Does this unbalance the game?
mfG m
Vince-G
Chieftain
I don't think so about your point about unbalance because of emptier Britain. We can spruce up the independents a bit in Britain to make sure they put up a decent resistance and keep any player of England from building a UK too quickly.
I think I do agree with you about Burgundy looking at it now, actually. On the other hand we could equally have a load of independents in France.
About replacing Genoa, I quite like the idea of having Milano. Milan was certainly a powerful and illustrious city and it'd be good for use as a civ. (Barbarossa targeted it to try and scare the Lombard League didn't he?)
I agree totally with what you say about Russia.
With dynasties I think we can merge that problem into your "Temporary Permanent Alliances"p). What we're really talking about here is personal unions, isn't it? I'll have to think about it as no obvious solution comes to mind, other than vassalization (permanent alliances place both civs on a kind of equal footing which basically isn't true with most dynasties like the Habsburgs).
I think I do agree with you about Burgundy looking at it now, actually. On the other hand we could equally have a load of independents in France.
About replacing Genoa, I quite like the idea of having Milano. Milan was certainly a powerful and illustrious city and it'd be good for use as a civ. (Barbarossa targeted it to try and scare the Lombard League didn't he?)
I agree totally with what you say about Russia.
With dynasties I think we can merge that problem into your "Temporary Permanent Alliances"
p). What we're really talking about here is personal unions, isn't it? I'll have to think about it as no obvious solution comes to mind, other than vassalization (permanent alliances place both civs on a kind of equal footing which basically isn't true with most dynasties like the Habsburgs).
memdee
Warlord
It might be a good idea to check out the "Europa Europa" mod (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144971). It has some pretty nice features like a colonial system, several christian movements and more.
Maybe some parts could be added in RFC Europe?
Just thinking out loud...
Maybe some parts could be added in RFC Europe?
Just thinking out loud...
dionysos2048
AntiSarko
I think it can be tempting to add as many civs as possible, but I'd rather have no more than 18, independents included, as the game is already painfully slow in the latest stages.
So, civs I'd go for would be:
Portugal, Spain, France, England, Rome, Germany, Netherlands, Vikings, Poland, Turkey, Greece, Hungary, Austria, Russia, Arabs, Serbia, and 2 independents, (one of them being the Celts).
So, civs I'd go for would be:
Portugal, Spain, France, England, Rome, Germany, Netherlands, Vikings, Poland, Turkey, Greece, Hungary, Austria, Russia, Arabs, Serbia, and 2 independents, (one of them being the Celts).
