The Chinese should born around Xi'an or Luoyang

[youtien]

First of all, thank Rhye for this great game! I study history (around modern China) and this mod gave me real feeling of civilization and history.

All mods set Beijing as the first city of China, this is not real. In fact, we assume that the Chinese civiliztion borns around the Yellow river, today's Shangxi, Shang'Xi and Henan province. So I would like to see the Chinese spawn around Xi'an or Luoyang instead of Beijing, more accurate.

Beijing(literally means 'northern capital') is not the capital until the Mongols come. China in 600 AD is the Suei dynasty, which would soon been replaced by the T'ang dynasty (618- 907), both capital is Xi'an, which named Da-xing(Suei) and Chang-an(T'ang) by the time.

Besides, I really don't like the 120 units UHV....too boring.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

It's been discussed before:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=247699

Xi'an would be tough to implement because of the mountains, whereas Luoyang would be a much better choice (being that it was the capital of the Han dynasty and has more resources/improvable land around it).

 

[Panopticon]

Well, Madrid has only been a capital for about 400 years...

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Well, Madrid has only been a capital for about 400 years...

And that's why there's no reason why Lisboa can't be the Spanish capital.
I know I'm trying to have it both ways: namely,
1. RFC only a simulation so we can found whatever capital we want
2. RFC should be as close to history as possible.

I think China would be much easier in the 3000 BC starting in Luoyang, whereas in the 600 AD start, Beijing wouldn't be a bad choice (as it's getting closer to the time when Beijing was the actual capital).

 

[Panopticon]

And that's why there's no reason why Lisboa can't be the Spanish capital.

Justify your gamesmanship however you want.

I know I'm trying to have it both ways: namely,
1. RFC only a simulation so we can found whatever capital we want
2. RFC should be as close to history as possible.

I think China would be much easier in the 3000 BC starting in Luoyang, whereas in the 600 AD start, Beijing wouldn't be a bad choice (as it's getting closer to the time when Beijing was the actual capital).

Which tile is Luoyang? Maybe you could found the state there in 3000 BC while also setting Beijing to be the capital if China is reborn.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

So red is Luoyang, blue is Xi'an/Chang'an/Hao, brown is Anyang, light blue is current spawn point/Beijing. To found Luoyang (a hill) it would take 3 moves, whereas Anyang is going to waste a sea tile, and Xi'an can't grow big at all.

 

[onedreamer]

Beijing(literally means 'northern capital') is not the capital until the Mongols come. China in 600 AD is the Suei dynasty, which would soon been replaced by the T'ang dynasty (618- 907), both capital is Xi'an, which named Da-xing(Suei) and Chang-an(T'ang) by the time.

In game terms, Beijing has been capital for more turns, so it makes sense that the capital is there. Who said that in the case a civ had more than one capital in its history, the first one in History should be the capital in RFC ? Maybe *you* think so, but not Rhye. In fact, this is not the only case... think Thebes (Egypt) for example, or Timbuktu.

 

[Virdrago]

Excuse the threadjack, but Timbuktu was never a capital - it was a major trading city for each empire it was a part of.

Capitals:
Ghana - Kumbi Saleh
Mali - Niani
Songhay - Kukiya, then Gao
Segou - Segou

It was mentioned in another thread about the Luoyang 3000 BC/ Beijing 600 AD starts. I do like that idea.

 

[onedreamer]

yeah, I meant that: Timbuctu hasn't even been a capital yet it's Mali's capital in Civ4.

Luoyang capital in 3000 BC doesn't make sense, you will have a China with Luoyang capital even in modern times, and like I said, there are more turns in the latest eras than in the earliest ones.

 

[Virdrago]

Since China generally (I know not all the time) collapses before respawning later (run-on sentence):

Can it be coded so that Louyang start as the capital for the 3000 BC start, but whenever China respawns, Beijing becomes the "new" capital? This idea is directly borrowed from the AI Turks instant switch to Istanbul as capital when they take the city. Therefore, Louyang can stay as the centre of China until collapse/ Mongol overrun, like RL (I know we don't want to completely simulate RL, but this could approximate it, like Judaism founding in Jerusalem, but not all the time).

 

[Cethegus]

Not a bad idea. I like it, any more opinions?

 

[AnotherPacifist]

I don't see any reason why Luoyang can't persist beyond 600 AD as the capital. Historically, Chinese capitals were moved because of foreign invasion (Nanking, Luoyang) and the need to reestablish central authority away from the frontlines (Xi'an). So if the Chinese succeeded in surviving a collapse, they should keep their old capital, whereas if they collapsed, Beijing (the new capital) should be chosen as representative of the later dynasties (Yuan, Ming, Manchu).

 

[Metal Alloy Man]

I think Virdrago's got the right idea.

 

[onedreamer]

Since China generally (I know not all the time) collapses before respawning later (run-on sentence):

Can it be coded so that Louyang start as the capital for the 3000 BC start, but whenever China respawns, Beijing becomes the "new" capital? This idea is directly borrowed from the AI Turks instant switch to Istanbul as capital when they take the city. Therefore, Louyang can stay as the centre of China until collapse/ Mongol overrun, like RL (I know we don't want to completely simulate RL, but this could approximate it, like Judaism founding in Jerusalem, but not all the time).

But all this for which reason ? The point of the OP is historical realism, and I reiterate for the 3rd time, that Beijing is more historical because of the number of turns.

 

[Virdrago]

Technically, Beijing would be ahistorical as the capital if going for the UHV, since it wasn't until after 1100 that it was ever more than secondary to other cities. In this case, the "more turns" argument wouldn't apply. In the 600AD start, Beijing would historically have been the capital for approximately half the turns of the UHV. Thus my reasoning. I know that not everyone plays for the UHV, but many do. If controlled by the human player, they can always move the capital (just like it doesn't move automatically for us if we capture Constantinople after founding Sogut). If played by the AI, they generally collapse at some point. So, if and when they respawn...

At least, that's my thinking.

 

[Thonnas]

Firstly, to play devils advocate, if you're going by turns, Beijing may not have the majority of turns under its belt, but none of the other great capitals have more. If you want to go by time, I believe Nanjing would dominate. Unfortunately, that's not very practical.

I always did like the idea of Luoyang being the stating position, for more than just historical accuracy. It's a decent city location, but not as resource heavy as Beijing, so it kind of hinders the AI from blowing up too fast and building a bunch of ancient wonders before ultimately collapsing. Its more central location helps a bit with maintenance. It also makes for some interesting city placement, and holy cities (I've played around with it actually changed, which is not hard to do).

Virdrago has an interesting idea to have it change, though, and to elaborate on that it would be interesting to set the Mongols and Chinese against each other by way of their desired capital. Basically make Beijing the desired capital location for both Genghis Khan and the later Chinese leader, such that, mongols will raze and conquer cities in the area to be able to found Khanbaliq, then any time after that china always tries to take it back. I've never messed with the AI, but given the Turkish AI already in effect, this probably wouldn't be too difficult to figure out. I may give it a look if Colonization doesn't totally curtail my recently revived interest in RFC.

Also, if you found Sogut, you are a fool. Use your stating workers to build a road on the tile, and with the culture pushed out due to your spawn, and a pasture and road on the sheep, you should be able to drive right into Istanbul. Alternatively, you should be able to blitz it before you end your second turn. Then you've got two settlers to help gobble up any free space in the Balkans, around the Black Sea, or in Mesopotamia, and don't have to move your capital from crappy Sogut.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Luoyang capital in 3000 BC doesn't make sense, you will have a China with Luoyang capital even in modern times, and like I said, there are more turns in the latest eras than in the earliest ones.

I want to revisit the request to move the 3000 BC spawn point to Luoyang. Now that the classical age is much longer, the argument that there's more moves in RFC that Beijing is the capital isn't true any more.

Unfortunately, in the 600 AD start, if you start even 1N or NE of start, your capital will flip, because you're "squatting" on Mongolian turf, so the overlap between Qufu and Beijing can't be avoided. (of course that comes with a lot of free techs and the Great Wall, so maybe it's a bargain after all).

 

[sennomulo]

I agree; Luoyang would be a much better starting point for the Chinese in the 3000 BC start. Another benefit of doing so is that it would actually be possible and make sense to build the Forbidden Palace in Beijing.

 

[LukeUeda-Sarson]

Virdrago's rising from collapse suggestion has real merit, IMO. In fact, I can think of not a few other civilzations this might usefully be applied to.


Cheers, Luke

 

[Louis XIV]

I agree; Luoyang would be a much better starting point for the Chinese in the 3000 BC start. Another benefit of doing so is that it would actually be possible and make sense to build the Forbidden Palace in Beijing.

Not only that, but if the player wants to move the palace to Beijing later in the game, it's their option.