The 65-Civ Mod!

[Red Door]

The mod will be finished sometime in the first-half of 2006.
I'm a man who does not have a lot of time. I get an hour or two per week to work on this. So, progression is slow. If anybody wants to speed this up, you're welcome to help.

 

[svetg]

AluminumKnight's quotes below:

Khan Kubrat
First united the Bulgars in the mid-7th century.
Best traits would probably be Aggressive or Defiant and Expansive
Favorite civic would probably be Serfdom or Vassalage

I don't think so. Actually Kubrat not united , but DIVIDED BULGARS. After his death his five sons separated the nation in different directions. The youngest - Asparuh invaded Byzantium at 681 AD and founded the BULGARIAN civilization (not to be mistaken with BULGAR civilization) what is a mix between southern Slavs, Thracians, Bulgars and some other tribes, where not Bulgars, but the Slavs were overwhelming majority who assimilated Bulgars and others. So, Kubrat was not even a Bulgarian, nor he lived in Bulgaria to be a Bulgarian leader. it's the same to call Queen Elizabeth - one of the greatest American leaders.

Tsar Boris III
Ruled from 1918-1941, great popularity with the people
Best traits - Charismatic/Something, I'm not sure what...
Favorite Civic would probably be Hereditary Rule (although it's kind of overused). Nationhood would probably work too, though.

Not a good choice either. Boris Klemens Robert Maria Pius Ludwig Stanislaus Xaver, son of Ferdinand I was not a Bulgarian, but German. He brought the war to Bulgaria, joining Hitler's side (not surprising for a German prince). He declared the war to England and USA what gave a reason to their bombers to bomb all Bulgarian cities, increasing Boris "popularity with the people"

Kubrat definitely needs to be in, but I'm not sure about Boris.

yeah, Queen Elizabeth should replace Washington in American Civilization either

I was trying to find a more modern leader, but unless you want the one that implemented Communism (which wouldn't necessarily be a bad choice, except he killed a lot of people, and all he really did was follow Stalin's example), there really isn't a better one to use.

What are you affraid of the Communist leaders? I lived in Bulgaria then and I can't remember somebody to "kill a lot of people". American propaganda again. If somebody "killed a lot of people" recently, that's a pair of Bushes.
And most of the Civilization leaders (Genghiz Khan by example) killed a lot more than "a lot of people" and not only are leaders, but this "activity" made them such.

I made a Bulgarian civilization myself and not only "there really isn't a better one to use", but I included only four of them, looking at about of dozen canditatures. Kubrat and Boris III were not even included in the initial list. My list was:

Khan Asparuh
Khan Krum
Knyaz Boris I
Tsar Simeon I
Tsar Samuil
Tsar Ivan-Asen I
Tsar Kaloyan
Tsar Ivan-Asen II
Ivailo the Swineherd
Stefan Stambolov
Todor Zhivkov
Zhelyu Zhelev

I included:
Khan Asparuh - he was the founder
Tsar Simeon I - Bulgaria had a "Golden age" during his reign
Stefan Stambolov - the most notorious bulgarian leader for the 19 century
Todor Zhivkov - the most notorious bulgarian leader for the 20 century. Not my type, but he ruled Bulgaria for 33 years. And he was not Stalin type. Enough said.

 

[Red Door]

I put two people as my Bulgarian leaders. I forget who now.

 

[AluminumKnight]

@svetg

This just proves that the internet is not always the best choice for researching information. My descriptions of those Bulgarian leaders came straight off of the website www.bulgaria.com, which seemed pretty reliable to me, considering it says it gets it's information from a book written by a Bulgarian professor. Obviously it must be full of "American propoganda" though.

First of all, how can you say Kubrat divided the Bulgarians? You even say yourself that after his death, his SONS divided the nation. I was looking for the founder, and I did look at Asparoukh, but since Kubrat was listed as the first Bulgarian ruler and seemed to be pretty important historically, I went with him.

Second, and I quote from the website, "Boris was a talented ruler who, unlike his father, won the sympathy of both the rich and poor." I was looking at modern rulers, and Boris jumped out at me first simply because he ruled for so long. I looked through the other modern leaders, and none of them, besides Dimitrov, seemed to have much of an impact. This is what was said about Dimitrov, and why I didn't choose him as my first choice for a leader.

"Prime Minister Dimitrov was a Stalin-style party leader who imposed the Communist Party as the single ruling power in the country, eliminated the bourgeois opposition from political life and crushed ideological resistance by means of staged trials and political oppression and executions."

Plus, he only ruled for a measly 3 years.

The biography of this Zhivkov fellow seems to indicate that he was simply a puppet of Moscow until his later years, where he "made some faint-hearted attempts" at reforms. There is no indication that he did something very important. No one really includes Gorbachev in discussions on Russian leaders, and Zhivkov seems to have way less impact on his country than Gorbachev did.

I had almost no previous knowledge of Bulgaria, so I could be way off here, a victim of false information. If you think that I'm completely wrong, I guess you would probably know better than me.

EDIT: There is no mention whatsoever of a golden age during Simeon's reign. Also, I have to admit I didn't really look at 19th century rulers, so you're probably right about Stambolov

 

[svetg]

AluminumKnight, I recomend you Wikipedia as your historical source. For what I know about history it's the most independent source for me. Other sites may twist the history a litle bit to match their political views at the moment.

There is no mention whatsoever of a golden age during Simeon's reign.

Below is the quote from the site you listed: www.bulgaria.com

The incessant wars waged by Simeon the Great turned Bulgaria into the most powerful Slavic state in Europe. On the cultural side, an unprecedented upsurge was taking place in Preslav and Ohrid. Newly erected palaces and churches adorned the capital, which the contemporaries called Great Preslav. The famous 'Preslav-style" tile work originated from this period. The highly educated ruler, perhaps the most enlightened monarch of Europe at the time, became a patron of arts and letters. Under his patronage the Bulgarian creative spirit drew the best of the cultural heritage of the neighboring Byzantium. This flourishing of Bulgarian culture became known as the Golden Age.

it gets it's information from a book written by a Bulgarian professor. Obviously it must be full of "American propoganda" though

You don't know the political situation in Bulgaria for the last 20 years. After the change of the Communist government in 90's there were strong pro-american anti-communist movement. I don't like communists either, but these anti-communists were too fanatical for me. It became fashionable to blame the communists with all sins without any evidences.

First of all, how can you say Kubrat divided the Bulgarians? You even say yourself that after his death, his SONS divided the nation. I was looking for the founder, and I did look at Asparoukh, but since Kubrat was listed as the first Bulgarian ruler and seemed to be pretty important historically, I went with him.

This is a quote from Bulgaria.com:

There is a legend saying that as the Khan was dying, he ordered his sons to fetch a bundle of sticks and told them to break it in two. When none of the sons managed to break the bundle, the Khan took the sticks and broke them one by one with his feeble hands. The sons understood their father's message: their strength depended on their unity. The Byzantine chroniclers Theophanes and Nicephorus wrote that Kubrat's bequest to his sons was to preserve the unity, "so that they would dominate everywhere and never become other peoples' slaves". The Khan died some time after 651 as a powerful and respected ruler. The five sons, however, went their separate ways and Great Bulgaria gradually fell apart.

Kubrat divided bulgars with preventing to assign one ruler after his death. It was obvious for this history period the oldest son of the previous monarch to be the next king. The other sons are just princes and vassals to their brother. Kubrat acted as a father, not as a king and his mistake divided bulgars after his death.

As i wrote earlier he is not a Bulgarian, but Bulgar. Follow the links to understand the difference. I don't trust your "Bulgarian professor" for this.

Boris was a talented ruler who, unlike his father, won the sympathy of both the rich and poor

Look my previous post and read the facts again.

The biography of this Zhivkov fellow seems to indicate that he was simply a puppet of Moscow until his later years, where he "made some faint-hearted attempts" at reforms. There is no indication that he did something very important.

I agree. He was a Moscow puppet and he did nothing important. But this means that his period was stable, peaceful, without changes. A lot of people get used to this stability and didn't like the sharp change in 90's. And the whole communist era in Bulgaria is associated with him.

I had almost no previous knowledge of Bulgaria, so I could be way off here, a victim of false information. If you think that I'm completely wrong, I guess you would probably know better than me.

What I like about Civilization game is that everybody learn a lot about world history and in some degree can practice your leader skills in the game. As you know "the history is written by the winners" that means that the close history is almost every time bent by the current political situation. Usually this is used by politics to strengthen their power. I'm trying to look at the facts and to follow the most popular version of the history. This doesn't mean that I'm absolutely right. I'm just trying to be as much as possible.

 

[Peter Deprez]

Let's discuss something which has not yet been discussed... UU's
For the UU for Belgium, I propose

Morning Star Militia (replaces Maceman)
Cost: 70 (Maceman: 80)
Movement: 1
Strength: 8
Abilities: +25% vs Melee, +50% vs Mounted (Maceman: +50% Melee)

The morning star is a huge club (up to 1.80m - 6ft) with a spike on the end, and sometimes some spikes along the sides. It can be used to club, or to jab. It's a Belgian 'invention', and led the Flemish militia, who were relatively undertrained, to victory against the far more trainded and supposedly superior French army of knights and nobility in the 'Battle of the Golden Spurs'.

This is the only thing I can come up with for a Belgian UU.
Other ideas?

 

[Red Door]

I like that UU idea.

 

[AluminumKnight]

AluminumKnight, I recomend you Wikipedia as your historical source. For what I know about history it's the most independent source for me. Other sites may twist the history a litle bit to match their political views at the moment.

I'll keep that in mind

You don't know the political situation in Bulgaria for the last 20 years. After the change of the Communist government in 90's there were strong pro-american anti-communist movement. I don't like communists either, but these anti-communists were too fanatical for me. It became fashionable to blame the communists with all sins without any evidences.

Exactly, I don't know. I'm not trying to prove that I'm right, I'm just saying that from the information that I had, I tried to pick the best leaders I could.

Kubrat divided bulgars with preventing to assign one ruler after his death. It was obvious for this history period the oldest son of the previous monarch to be the next king. The other sons are just princes and vassals to their brother. Kubrat acted as a father, not as a king and his mistake divided bulgars after his death.

I still don't understand how you can say he divided the Bulgars. I understand that he maybe should have declared his oldest son King, but I don't think this is sufficient reason to say that "he divided the Bulgars."

I understand the Bulgars are not Bulgarian, but they are unmistakably the precursors to the Bulgarians. Would you have a problem with the Greeks having a modern Greek leader? I wouldn't, and the modern Greeks are not the same as the ancient Greeks. I don't know, maybe you would. In fact, maybe you should have suggested some Bulgarian leaders, because as far as I know, I was the only one to actually take some initiative and do something productive, rather than ask "why aren't the Boogaboogas in this mod?"

What I like about Civilization game is that everybody learn a lot about world history and in some degree can practice your leader skills in the game. As you know "the history is written by the winners" that means that the close history is almost every time bent by the current political situation. Usually this is used by politics to strengthen their power. I'm trying to look at the facts and to follow the most popular version of the history. This doesn't mean that I'm absolutely right. I'm just trying to be as much as possible.

I know that you know more than me about Bulgarian history, I'm just saying that I found a site that seemed to be credible and found the leaders I thought would be best. If I were you, Alcosta, I'd probably listen to svetg, he seems to know a lot more than me.

EDIT: Oh, the golden age thing... I thought I had read his information fully, but I must have either concluded that my other choices were better too early and quit on him, or just flat out missed it.

 

[gianluca790]

and by no means are the Aztecs the same as the Mexicans.

A lot of Mexicans, just like a lot of South Americans, have Indian Blood, right? Just like a lot of those Mestizos who have European blood.

Hola, INDIO!

 

[gianluca790]

I don't think Micronesians and Melanesians work too well as civs.

Combine them into the Pacific Islands civilisation.

 

[Thehistoryman]

Maybe this was addressed earlier but why is Vietnam out? To me if you feel you want SE asia represented you need Vietnam. People may not know Laos or Cambodia but EVERYONE knows Vietnam.

 

[Red Door]

Honestly, I barely looked at AluminunKnight and svetg's argument. Right now, I'm doing the actual creation of the mod.
Gianluca790, I'm trying to make this as realistic as possible, so having a "Pacific Islands" nation will not work well.
Vietnam is out because we needed a civ in Indonesia.

The release date is moving back...a lot!
I am working on other things (in and outside Civ)

 

[quastar]

Maybe this was addressed earlier but why is Vietnam out? To me if you feel you want SE asia represented you need Vietnam. People may not know Laos or Cambodia but EVERYONE knows Vietnam.

If you want to talk about the SEA, then obviously Singapore is by far more popular than Vietnam, but they don't qualify much as a civ in this game... Don't worry though, it will be in the second part of the mod, according to AlCosta15.

 

[Red Door]

Umm, forget about the second part of the mod.
I have other plans
Anyway, this mod is hard to make and I'm getting little work done, but it'll be completed.

 

[bryan_buss]

I think it would be neat if you could add the confederate states civilization to this mod. I know they only existed as a country for a few years, but thats whats fun about Civ IV you can re-write history. In Civ IV the Union could be using slavery, and the Confederacy could have abolished it.

 

[Red Door]

Sorry, civ choices are over.
And anyway, 65 civs are harder to include than most people think, I need to include more deserving civs.

 

[jcikal]

I don't know how many here know this or not, but apparently we can have as huge a map size as we want, big enough to accomodate 65 Civs+, so all we need now, is for Firaxis to lift this limit embargo on Civ 4 and allow us mere mortals to have as many Civs to play against at the same time as we want.

So the 65-Civ mod may actually be used to its full potential if only Firaxis lifts the 18-Civ limit.

PS: And while they're at it, they might as well add a way for us to be able to just watch a play between the AI, without having to get involved in the game at all. (Kind of like you can with UT, Nascar Racing, and most other sports like Football, baseball, etc where you can just watch the AI play against each other).

 

[Red Door]

I don't know how many here know this or not, but apparently we can have as huge a map size as we want, big enough to accomodate 65 Civs+, so all we need now, is for Firaxis to lift this limit embargo on Civ 4 and allow us mere mortals to have as many Civs to play against at the same time as we want.

So the 65-Civ mod may actually be used to its full potential if only Firaxis lifts the 18-Civ limit.

PS: And while they're at it, they might as well add a way for us to be able to just watch a play between the AI, without having to get involved in the game at all. (Kind of like you can with UT, Nascar Racing, and most other sports like Football, baseball, etc where you can just watch the AI play against each other).

Apparently with SDK, it will be possible to have that many civs at once because they said that everything could be changed except 3D-Graphics and the title of the game.

 

[jcikal]

Apparently with SDK, it will be possible to have that many civs at once because they said that everything could be changed except 3D-Graphics and the title of the game.

By 3d graphics, do you mean we won't be able to have custom models like we can with Civ 3? Please say it ain't so That would be a step backwards.

 

[Red Door]

By 3d graphics, do you mean we won't be able to have custom models like we can with Civ 3? Please say it ain't so That would be a step backwards.

Sorry, I should've been clearer. It means no change to Civ 3 graphics. It means (probably) that we'll be able to have new units and etc.