Should there be more civs add to Rhye's

[LuKo]

How could adding another civ slow down the game exponentially and not linear?

They need to have diplomatic relations with every other civilization.

 

[onedreamer]

If you do not read any of the other pages read this one:
http://angam.ang.univie.ac.at/LiveMiss/Cahokia/frameset.htm

(let me say that about 98% of the links of this website is an HTTP 404 deadend).

Ok, so we know that there was a big settlement there, at least compared to the rest of north america. We know very little about the people that lived there (we don't even know their name and the name of the settlement) because they had not invented writing. We only know that they built big mounds and that they were sedentary. Why does the fact that they built mounds and cultivated corn impress so much so many people to think there should be a civ to represent them ? We may have an idea for a UB but what about the rest to flesh out a Civ ? And what could the UHV be if they didn't even invent Writing by the time Europe was discovering Gunpowder and there is no evidence of this "civ" living in more than one settling ???
I think people got a bit overexcited here, since you can read comments like this from that website: [Cahokia being one of the world's bigger settlement in its time !!] "having rivaled London in size and being “much larger than Paris at the time, one of Europe's major cities". Heh, well, one could answer with a lot of arguments, but let me say just one thing: european Middle Age cities were built very tight by design, I don't see how this undermines their importance or increases the "achievements" of Cahokians. Now if my 3 brothers and I would build a settlement where our 4 houses would stand at the corners of a square of 50 km sides, would we have built a huge metropolis, bigger than NYC ? Hardly, right ? Not to mention that the nature in Europe and America is completely different. Everything in America is bigger. Comments like the one I quoted only make those websites appear like a bunch of fanatics' visions, and I was by no means joking when I said that there are more evidences about Atlantis, and that we know more about it. Look around the net, you'll find the same kind of websites, just with MORE evidences and working links, especially since the recent discoveries in the Indian Ocean.

 

[The M'Hael]

(let me say that about 98% of the links of this website is an HTTP 404 deadend).

Ok, so we know that there was a big settlement there

I was just providing links because you asked for them.

Personally, I do not think it should be a playable civ. I would be happy if it was just a Native city. It WAS there and it WAS the largest city in NA at the time, so I think it should be represented in Rhye's as a Native City.

Thanks Luko, that makes sense...

 

[onedreamer]

But it was abandoned by 1400 according to your links, and only became a center of significant size/population not much before, in RFC terms, this means that a city would show up and disappear before some other civ would actually have time to interact with it... which if you think about it is not only RFC terms, but real history.

 

[Stile]

Also, check out National Geographic's May, 2007 edition. It includes a nice insert showing how destructive the plagues were to the Eastern Seaboard's natives. As well, the Plains Indians weren't nomadic until the plagues destroyed their societies farther east... (mentioned in the article)

That was an interesting article.

I find it intriguing the idea in that article (or perhaps it was a Smithonian magazine article that also appeared this past spring) of how populated the mid-atlantic actually was. I had pictured a pristine wilderness with dense forests and ragtag groups of natives. In actuality the indians had cleared all the undergrowth and had implemented crop rotation. The rotation was misunderstood by the settlers who claimed the fallow fields as abandoned. I grew up on the Chesapeake Bay and the town names are a mixture of indian and English. Chincoteague, Machipongo, Assawoman, and Onancock give way to Tasley, Cape Charles, Salisbury, and Princess Anne. Of course the indian named towns are named after nearby rivers, islands or inlets, probably not after an indian settlement.

All of this to say, I don't think they should be included outside of a barbarian presence, even though there were upwards of 20,000 natives living just in the tidewater region of Virginia and the English were able to use already cleared land.

 

[Jeppson]

Please people, the game already runs slowly enough as it is - more civs, more waiting time. I already hate the modern period enough that I refuse to play the US again.

Sorry but if your computer is from 1999 you cant expect things to run smothly.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

^^

But my computer is from 2005, and it is very slow during 19th century.

 

[Riker]

No more civs will be added from Rhye. Period

 

[das]

While making the Byzantines playable in the 600 scenario does sound like a good idea to me (after all, it has been proven a while ago that they could hypothetically survive), even that will probably be difficult to implement. As to the other suggestions, I fear none of them are practical. The Zulus were too late, minor and ultimately-insignificant to count as a proper civilisation; the Native Americans never did form an unified polity, though as pointed out previously they did have some very developed centers. Korea is just too small, and ultimately didn't do much in history; making it a colonial power (as was done with other tiny, but developed coastal nations) is ridiculous for many reasons, and it really won't be able to thrive when caught between Mongolia, China and Japan.

HOWEVER, it would be a good idea to create some wholly original civilisations to fill in some extensive unoccupied and wrongly-occupied regions (so as to prevent 20th century empty spots and effortlessly huge empires, respectively) and in particular deal with the "barbarian problem". From the top of the hat:
- Poland (will fill in between Germany and Russia, somewhat curbing the former's early expansion and leading to a more historical balance of power; really not sure about what power it could have, but UHVs should probably be aimed towards hegemony in Eastern Europe combined with military strength);
- Kongo (will fill in Central Africa, limiting the barbarians somewhat; probably religion-themed UHVs and power, and maybe something like the Aztec anti-European UHV);
- Zanzibar/Tanzania (will help fill in Africa, and generally be trade- and sea-themed);
- Sogdiana/Turkestan (will fill in Central Asia, curving the barbarians there somewhat; commercial/cultural UHVs will make more sense for Sogdiana, whereas Turkestan, while probably retaining some commercial elements, should probably also have military and/or religious/scientific UHVs);
- Indonesia (to prevent a ridiculously huge, powerful and wealthy Khmer Empire; commercial and religious UHVs, possibly including something like the Carthaginian monopoly UHV);
- Australia (okay, very dubious for many reasons, but I just can't stand the sight of that barren, mostly-empty continent).

Some additional civilisations in America WOULD be good, but I can't think of where we could put them. I'd have proposed Brazil, as it is frequently unoccupied in my games, but that obviously clashes with the Portuguese UHV.

 

[sdLeo]

@Das: I like the ideas above, but I think they would do just fine (and would better suit the mod) as Indies...

 

[SadoMacho]

Not Poland again!!!
There is simply no place for Poland in Europe, or any other civ for that matter.
Adding an African civ is like adding the Zulus.

Australia is a to modern civ.

Decolonization civ like Brazil, Colombia,... might be nice, but maybe a bite to short to play. Maybe add them as unplayables like the independants.

I like the Turkmenistan idea. It's really a blanck spot on the map. A civ around Samarkand.

A playable Byzantium in de 600AD start, even in the 3000BC start might be nice too.

But the most important reason not to add civs is that is slows down the game even more and that's against Rhye's philosophy. So...maybe not adding civs would be the best.

 

[The Everard]

I,ve always supported the Koreans. Theres no real reason not to include them and yes it would be fun as a sort of RFC 1-2 city challenge.

It would also give Japan a much needed adversary and would make their UHV much harder.


With native americans what about the cherokee or iriqios? They were in civ3 I werent they?

also why do the mayans spawn so late? they were around since at least 900 bc.

 

[Riker]

Rhye is not adding any civs. Period.

 

[Corm]

No more civs will be added from Rhye. Period

Rhye is not adding any civs. Period.

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

 

[Rhye]

I won't add any, but Korea was indeed a mistake of mine.
I couldn't think of any UP or UHV and they have virtually no expansion, but I didn't think about making their UHV a unique 1 city challenge, that would have been interesting.
Too late now anyway. I'm not screwing up strategy guides (on paper magazines too) that mention independent Korea

 

[The Everard]

I did notice on the manual however it mentions possible additions of minor civs...

 

[Squirrelloid]

I did notice on the manual however it mentions possible additions of minor civs...

Read "minor" as unplayable independents.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

I won't add any, but Korea was indeed a mistake of mine.
I couldn't think of any UP or UHV and they have virtually no expansion, but I didn't think about making their UHV a unique 1 city challenge, that would have been interesting.
Too late now anyway. I'm not screwing up strategy guides (on paper magazines too) that mention independent Korea

Maybe you were thinking about how you're going to get by with Ming Tai Zu's mug looking exactly like Wang Kon's.

 

[Rhye]

I did notice on the manual however it mentions possible additions of minor civs...

i'm sorry, that line is outdated.

 

[dionysos2048]

Can't wait for RFC on CIV5