Should there be more civs add to Rhye's

[IrishDragon]

i think korea should be included, also the celts should become playable if there still alive after a certain point or after nationalism is discovered in their homelands

 

[Lone Wolf]

Quoted twice for effect since this thread keeps cropping up in various forms and has done since before BtS was launched.

Yeah, we realize that no more civs will be added. But why that should stop us whining about the need to add Luxembourg?

 

[RedRalph]

Lads having never got far in the mod due to various difficulties, (difficulty level, performance), can I ask does the 3000bc start stay with the amount of Civs at the start or do completely new ones spawn later in the game?

 

[say1988]

New civs spawn at about the time they historically rose.

 

[RedRalph]

New civs spawn at about the time they historically rose.

OK, cool. About how many in total appear througout?

If you start as, say Greece, at some stage the USA will appear?

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Yes, USA will appear in 16XX(not their real independence year, they were kind of a vassal state before independence) if I'm correct.

 

[Lone Wolf]

If you start as, say Greece, at some stage the USA will appear?

Yes, they will.

Crosspost.

 

[RedRalph]

Ahh.... eeeexcellent..... I think if the new patch makes it better to play for me levelwise, I'll probably play only RFC for the next 6 months....

 

[memdee]

Welcome to our world

 

[The Q-Meister]

Rhye said (and I agree):

it will grow big cities all over the place. Of course, it will be backwards, but the European didn't conquer North America, they SETTLED it..

Settled it yes, but over the bones of Native Americans and over the ruins of Native cities and settlments. Disease, enslavement, exhaustion and wars devastated the Native popluations, virtually wiping entire cultures out. It wasn't as if it was just barren land the Europeans encountered...the Americas were populated by Natives in the millions. How much exactly? That IS controversial and no one knows for sure, but that it is in the millions, if not tens of millions I don't think any serious historian doubts.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Oh yes and to answer the topic's question:

Add more civs? NO.

 

[Úmarth]

The North American settlers did pretty much find a barren wasteland because of European diseases introduced by the Spanish. I'm not saying that Europeans didn't commit terrible atrocities in North America but in civ terms it was settlement not invasion; there were no cities or complex states for the Europeans to conquer. They founded their own.

 

[Fairy]

It might be too slow to do so, and I don't think they'd add much.

From my experience, the world map is already full enough!

 

[Depravo]

The presence of Korea would more or less force Japan to crush it early on in order to make her UHV.

 

[Corm]

Yes, USA will appear in 16XX(not their real independence year, they were kind of a vassal state before independence) if I'm correct.

Your right about being a Vassal (of england technically, although really the NA cities were simply part of the Empire rather than a Vassal but thats by the by) but your wrong about the year. USA spawns in 1730AD

Yeah, we realize that no more civs will be added. But why that should stop us whining about the need to add Luxembourg?

Arf! If Rhye done that Poland would have to be added and we cant have that can we?

 

[mitsho]

Settled it yes, but over the bones of Native Americans and over the ruins of Native cities and settlments. Disease, enslavement, exhaustion and wars devastated the Native popluations, virtually wiping entire cultures out. It wasn't as if it was just barren land the Europeans encountered...the Americas were populated by Natives in the millions. How much exactly? That IS controversial and no one knows for sure, but that it is in the millions, if not tens of millions I don't think any serious historian doubts.

Yes, but Plague as we know it in RFC won't wipe out a civilization, so there would be a continent covered by culture... Besides, what point or fun would there be to have a civ that exists but that isn't playable due to being wiped out "automatically"?

We're not really talking history in here, mind you, we're talking of RFC which still is a game, not a simulation

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Your right about being a Vassal (of england technically, although really the NA cities were simply part of the Empire rather than a Vassal but thats by the by) but your wrong about the year. USA spawns in 1730AD.

Oo, I've forgot that the year has changed. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[mollari]

Hi!
For those trying to get some information about pre-columbian chiefdoms, a small start on amazonian's advanced settlements:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

 

[Panopticon]

There should be fewer civs in Rhye's, in my opinion. The Mayans could certainly be represented by a single NPC city, as in the 600 AD start. The Carthaginians could also be shrunk like that, if you want to be really strict. In addition, I've noticed that the Mongols and Vikings stay around longer than they did historically as united empires, and I think they should either be simulated as barbarian waves or suffer a lot of minuses in stability, so they collapse early.

Having said that, perhaps I am just historically ill-informed; but I don't see much benefit from the presence of these four civs as opposed to the available alternatives, and the performance cost of having them in.

 

[CyberChrist]

There should be fewer civs in Rhye's, in my opinion. The Mayans could certainly be represented by a single NPC city, as in the 600 AD start. The Carthaginians could also be shrunk like that, if you want to be really strict. In addition, I've noticed that the Mongols and Vikings stay around longer than they did historically as united empires, and I think they should either be simulated as barbarian waves or suffer a lot of minuses in stability, so they collapse early.

Having said that, perhaps I am just historically ill-informed; but I don't see much benefit from the presence of these four civs as opposed to the available alternatives, and the performance cost of having them in.

The Mayan City States lasted - and continued to offer resistance against the Spanish - a lot longer than either the Aztec or Inca did.

Carthaginians was a proper empire back in those ancient times - and the main enemy of Rome until they were finally defeated.

Mongols was responsible for the biggest empire (area wise anyway) that the world have ever seen - and they are still around.

Vikings never existed as a united empire - or even nation. But since Rhye insist on using this historical incorrect label given by Firaxis for the Scandinavians then yes, the Scandinavian nations are still very much around and going strong.