Starting Civics for Spawning Civs

[dh_epic]

Yeah, focus on other things that have more of an impact on gameplay. People will just have to use a bit of imagination. (Maybe you could change the starting civics to something so generic that they basically say "A civilization without a fully agreed upon government, in transition" or something.)

 

[Prestidigitator]

So can someone please kindly list the expansion civs to be included in 'Rhye's and Fall: Warlords'?
Here is what I think SHOULD be in...
1. Babylon (that is in-the-works and I'm working on it with a couple of members).
2. Vikings.
3. Carthage.
4. Ottomans.

Those were the must haves... as for other civs, I think someone mentioned earlier they will be minor civs.
Celts would really clog-up Europe if they were to be a major civ.
Zulu, I'm not sure what to think about them, however I think we could replace them with the Ethiopians of someother African civ.
Koreans, I really do not think so, small region, small civilization, really un-needed IMO. But again, we could use this slot for another civilization, and here is what I think:
1. Either the Iroqouis, or possibly the addition of an Australian civ, Maori is a name that comes to my mind.

 

[mitsho]

Maori, why? barbarians simulate them well enough, they would really have no chance at being a major player in the game.
Iroquois? Why make the game even harder for the Americans? Although If both would be upped you could have a quick civil war (as both civs appear at the same time) and whoever wins would be bigger, stronger to combat the Europeans and the Aztecs respectively...
Koreans. YES, I'm absolutely for them, because this would enlarge the Asian civs, make the game there more interesting and allows for different religious factions in the East. That's also the point why I want the Ashoka leaderhead to represent a Southeastasian civ like the Khmer or the Thai.

...

my two cents, mitshp

 

[Head Serf]

Do we really need the Ottomans? They'll just clog up the already full Asia Minor and middle east. There are already Greece, Persia, and Arabia in that area. I also think Korea should be in the game.

 

[Gunner]

Shouldn't this discussion head over here? Don't clutter up two threads with the same topic.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=4348623#post4348623

 

[dh_epic]

Ottomans are pretty damn important, IMO. Without them, you can't explain how there was little flow of ideas from Europe to China ... and you can't explain just how important that passage around Africa was, or the motivating factor for discovering the new world.

Europe is the most clogged anyway. I wouldn't advocate ditching Spain or something like that, either. To me, the region could still stand to have Holland and Portugal -- those guys were enormously important to the past 500 years of history.

 

[Barak]

I tried and unfortunately anarchy at the beginning doesn't allow to choose civics. You would have to wait it settle as the 1st row, and then change again. In other words, it's even worse.

As for assigning starting civics directly, they should also match the available techs, and religions should be never set.
So, it ends up with all (including America) with Hereditary Rule+Slavery, except some with high-upkeep Vassallage and Serfdom (Euro civs) or some even penalized with Despotism (Mongolia)

Is it really worth it?

I see your point. There are other things that we need you concentrate on at this point.