dionysos2048
AntiSarko
I really like that idea. It also offers the advantage of a less predictable game if the random option is chosen.
Should there be more civs add to Rhye's
- Thread starter Infantry#14
- Start date
I really like that idea. It also offers the advantage of a less predictable game if the random option is chosen.
Rod
King
What is done currently is that there is a number of average civs. That means that there are 30 civs, but only a capped number is alive at a single point of time. The others are collapsed.
In this case you already have kinda of the proposed feature but without any unnecessary randomness.
Randomness would actually spoil the gameplay of RFC. See, all civs are interlinked with each other. Like when Spain is supposed to conquer the Incas it would be kinda stupid if there are no Inca.
Also several civs have the function to balance each other. This is especially true for Europe. So France and Russia are balancing Germany. If there is no France then Germany would be a Super Germany, which would spoil gameplay rapidly. What I mean to say is that all civs are balanced in a very subtle way but nevertheless complex way.
A few examples :
Russia has no enemy to the east, therefore Siberia is a REALLY crappy place. (this is done by marches, tundra, less ressources etc.) India has a whole subcontinent alone, but is not suppose to rise before very late in the game, therefore there are lots of jungles in India etc etc. Not the mention the endless deserts and mountains in the 'natural' Mongolian territory.
European territory on the other hand is boosted excessively, because it has to host historically high rising Civs on minimal territory.
Therefore if suddenly a few European Civs are missing then there is a real problem. In this case there would emerge an ever dominating European Super Civ.
In this case you already have kinda of the proposed feature but without any unnecessary randomness.
Randomness would actually spoil the gameplay of RFC. See, all civs are interlinked with each other. Like when Spain is supposed to conquer the Incas it would be kinda stupid if there are no Inca.
Also several civs have the function to balance each other. This is especially true for Europe. So France and Russia are balancing Germany. If there is no France then Germany would be a Super Germany, which would spoil gameplay rapidly. What I mean to say is that all civs are balanced in a very subtle way but nevertheless complex way.
A few examples :
Russia has no enemy to the east, therefore Siberia is a REALLY crappy place. (this is done by marches, tundra, less ressources etc.) India has a whole subcontinent alone, but is not suppose to rise before very late in the game, therefore there are lots of jungles in India etc etc. Not the mention the endless deserts and mountains in the 'natural' Mongolian territory.
European territory on the other hand is boosted excessively, because it has to host historically high rising Civs on minimal territory.
Therefore if suddenly a few European Civs are missing then there is a real problem. In this case there would emerge an ever dominating European Super Civ.
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Sound reasoning, but it does seem to contradict with your previous post favouring the Vikings being merely barbarians. Your reasoning equally applies to the Vikings in regard to balancing Germany, England, Russia and possibly Netherlands as well.
In case it wasn't clear then I never advocated making Vikings barbarians, but rather to change them into something more historical appropriate than Vikings past the medieval era.
---
The more I think about it the more I feel that the mod would stand to gain a lot from adding the Celts as playable civ during the classical era(see my previous post for suggested set up).
That they might make things harder for Rome is a non-issue imho, if anything then the opposite would probably be true. The Romans should be stronger than the Celts, and there would be more of the cities that the Romans need for their UHV already founded by the Celts for the Romans to capture.
Rod
King
not quite,
see Barbarians are also a balancing factor.
A Scandinavia full of Barbarian Vikings and Barbarian Cities will stop any early expansion into that area as well.
The issue would only occur if there would be NO placeholder in Scandinavia at all.
Neither a Civ, nor Barbarian territory.
(this was the suggestion, when people suggested to have only 18 random civs).
Therefore I still like the idea to make Vikings Barbarians.
Celts should be there only if they would collapse quite certain and quite early, if this could be worked Celts could be fun.
see Barbarians are also a balancing factor.
A Scandinavia full of Barbarian Vikings and Barbarian Cities will stop any early expansion into that area as well.
The issue would only occur if there would be NO placeholder in Scandinavia at all.
Neither a Civ, nor Barbarian territory.
(this was the suggestion, when people suggested to have only 18 random civs).
Therefore I still like the idea to make Vikings Barbarians.
Celts should be there only if they would collapse quite certain and quite early, if this could be worked Celts could be fun.
well all of the Celtic land would be given to the Medieval European Civs when they spawn anyway meaning the only place in Europe they could survive would be Ireland or if they conquered Rome.
(speaking of which wasn't it around the time of the Romans spawn in our game that the city was sacked by a Gaul who demanded his weight in gold and famously said "woe to the vanquished"?)
(speaking of which wasn't it around the time of the Romans spawn in our game that the city was sacked by a Gaul who demanded his weight in gold and famously said "woe to the vanquished"?)
CyberChrist
You caught my attention
Rome was sacked by the Gaul/Celt in 390BC (approx 15 turns after Rome spawns).
Similar threads
