The problem of Ethiopia.

[Theodorick]

I believe Ethiopia was haphazardly added to this mod--in fact I almost think they shouldn't have been be added at all--due to the following reasons:

1. Egypt often--at least 95% of the time in my games--collapses, and due to this, becomes Ethiopian. As a result, Ethiopia becomes way too powerful to be realistic. The easy fix for this is to not make Egypt so incredibly unstable from the start.
2. The UHVS require a very unrealistic play of the game, much more than any other unrealistic UHVS--even the Incans. Since when has Ethiopia founded a religion or dominated Africa?
3. It is often possible, even without Egypt or UHV attempts, at dominating Africa. Ethiopia becomes way too powerful when compared to them in history; it's like having Khmer conquer to Bejing or Delhi!. In reality, the question of Ethiopia conquering to cape town is seen as laughable, even with the strong 'what if' scenarios.

Now I do realize Ethiopia was sort of added against Rhye's want--due to BTS--but this still doesn't mean it should be haphazardly made. The UHVS alone are a strong testament to how forced Ethiopia was in this mod, and while I know they are possible, I do not want to pursue them, because they are just insanely unrealistic. It's almost like asking for India to conquer all of Europe. It just doesn't make sense. Ethiopia never had a need to conquer and settle most of Africa anyways!

If there cannot be any reasonable solution to this, then I say allow a variation that kicks out Ethiopia altogether. Mali, Carthage, and Egypt are enough for Africa anyways, since Europe usually settles the majority of it in the end, or/and makes all of the African powers their vassals.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Ethiopia more often then not collapses too.

 

[thadian]

Also, ethiopia, carthage and Egypt always collapse from taking each others cities all the time.

I have always wondered if Ethiopia should be replaced with the Zulu to give africa more space and value altogether.

it seems like egypt vs ethiopia always kills both nations, no matter how far out of your way you go to keep them alive with gifts and other forms of assistance.

It seems like africa always falls into a catagory of irrelevance though once in a while the north africa becomes a battleground, often between euro nations and mali. Sometimes this causes carthage to spawn, which in turn causes an africa-collapse because they always get smacked down by spain and try to take egypt cities then spain or portugal takes their primary ones because their weakly defended. then they all collapse.

I think if carthage were prevented from spawning after a certain year, and ethiopia were replaced with the zulu, egypt would have a little more breathing space, and zulu would also have breathing space, but the zulu pose a problem of their own - like monty, they would need to spawn later, like around the time ethiopia spawns. they would also likely be smaller, but if they did go north to where ethiopia is, they should clash borders with egypt and make africa relevant, as carthage would have the extra room to not get squeezed in.

I have never seen ethiopia not collapse - i have also have never seen a late game egypt-carthage spawn that lived or became relevant at any point. (like when late game, babylon respawns and collapses the middle east into irrelevance)

 

[MrPopov]

I like Ethiopia. Their UP is nice and I don't think their UHVs are unrealistic.

As far as religion goes, check the Rastafari Movement. Also there have been claims that the Ark of the Covenant is being held there and that Jesus even went there.

In my games, Ethiopia becomes highly unstable when conquering all of Africa.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The only time I've seen a moderately strong AI Ethiopia is when it got a Great Mediator event vs. the Natives. And it collapsed anyway.

 

[blizzrd]

There is no problem with Ethiopia in RFC. I've played many games (possibly bordering on too many) and I have never seen AI Ethiopia doing anything particularly ahistorical. When I've been in control, I can (just) manage to hold off all of the natives/barbs/instability issues and get the UHV - but only about 1 time in 4 on Monarch. And I can't do it at all on Emperor.

I believe that the puzzle of the Ethiopian UHV (on Monarch difficuly) is actually one of the best in RFC. Other than seeing another gold resource in the upper Nile region, I'm currently very happy with how Africa plays out in RFC.

 

[onedreamer]

same as Blizzard. Ethiopia too powerful ? No way.
None has mentioned btw, that Ethiopia will perform best (as AI) when it has Christianity. But most of the time it's either Jewish or Muslim, and therefore doomed.

 

[brucedecatz]

When I played as Ethiopia, I always start as Rome and took Jerusalem, automate, send a galley to meet the Ethiopians for trade, and switch when Ethiopian spawn. But I always miss Christianity... a lot of times it is found in Egypt... Damn Asoka who traded them mediation so that the great prophet from the obelisk can bulb Theology!

If an AI plays it, I have never seen it surviving to the age of Astronomy. Most often it is destroyed in the first 50-100 turns.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Ethiopia collapses more often than not due to their economy, which is automatically hit by the "floodplains" penalty that Egypt and Mali also get. And their trade routes suck, even if you have contact with civs from other continents.

Zulus spawn way too late for realistic gameplay (1700's), although a case could be made to have them represent all the native tribes, so may be spawning around the time of the Aztecs/Incans might work.

 

[blizzrd]

2. The UHVS require a very unrealistic play of the game, much more than any other unrealistic UHVS--even the Incans.

The Ethiopian UHV conditions are neither more or less "unrealistic" than the Aztecs UHV requiring them to enter the Industrial Age or the Vikings sinking ships.

Since when has Ethiopia founded a religion or dominated Africa?

Ethiopia arguably was the first nation/kingdom to adopt Christianity, depending on whether Armenia was just slightly earlier. Certainly earlier than the Roman empire though.

Ethiopia doesn't have to dominate sub-Saharan Africa either, it just has to keep the Europeans out. This is historically similar to the fact that Ethiopia was independent throughout the European Colonial period in Africa, and they defeated the Italians who tried to conquer them.

Perhaps if you read a little more about Ethiopian history you wouldn't be so adamant that they are ahistorical in RFC?

 

[thadian]

please dont get me wrong, i would never try to discredit the ethiopians. I am aware of those claims, which i believe to be vastly true, however i also think there should be native americans and zulu - maybe being able to "choose" what civs will be in your game, you could choose to just not use the ones that you feel arent appropriate.

I just never see etheopia, or the respawns of carthage/egypt/babylon to do anything but collapse already ailing regions. I figured zulu instead would give more spacing and allow for more stable regions.

 

[onedreamer]

From what I know, the Zulu are just some south african tribes, "barbarians" in Civ or Roman terms. Ethiopia is a long lasting civilization, with cultural and political achievements that can't be compared to the Zulu's even in the wildest dreams.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Onedreamer, I think you just slapped some tens of millions of African faces in a rather un-PC fashion. Not that I don't agree with you in the general sense, but that was kinda blunt.

 

[thadian]

technically, if not for balance/regional stability issues, i would like to see EVERY civ added. I have long said Native America and Zulu are welcome, and its not that i prefer them to replace anyone its just that...

As i said what happens in 1930 when Babylon spawns? the whole mid-east collapses into eternal irrelevance.

What happens to africa when the mali/euro wars arent resolved? carthage spawns, and normally conquers egyptian cities (the only ones it actually can conquer) and sends carthage/mali/egypt into irrelevance, and that is if any of these civ's are actually alive. I am not proposing excluding any civ, but maybe doing something about regions in general to make them relevant because even on emperor, it seems like you can always bet that the mid-east, and africa will BOTH be irrelevant before 1700, and if any middle east civ spawns after turkeys spawn, the mid-east game is all over.

I like civ's - i also like regions that have some ability to survive and last, look at africa - one of the biggest landmasses, 4 civ's (egypt, carthage, malinese, ethiopia) and look at europe - france, spain, portugal, netherlands, germany, england, russia (always interacts with euro civs) and unless germany goes berzerk and conquers europe then collapses, europe is stable with half as much room for 2 times as much stability.

 

[Verily]

same as Blizzard. Ethiopia too powerful ? No way.
None has mentioned btw, that Ethiopia will perform best (as AI) when it has Christianity. But most of the time it's either Jewish or Muslim, and therefore doomed.

LOL, well, every AI performs best in RFC with Christianity as their state religion. It facilitates trade with all of the European powers, and that's all there is to it. (Sometimes Islam is better if it happens to spread quickly in the 600 CE start, but almost always it's Christianity which is dominant in Europe.)

 

[Mowque]

I have had many strong Ethopias run by AI, never a MAJOR power but often above vassal level. I think they fit in very nicely....far better then a 'Zulu' tribe would be. In real life the Zulu were smashed by Maxims....do we want that kind of un-balance in RFC?

 

[zbelg]

The UHVs, from what I've gathered, represent moreso what the civilization attempted to achieve rather than it's actual historical accomplishments. Ethiopia, along with most of Africa, was rather . .. .. .. .ed when white man came along.

The main beef I have with Ethiopia is that their first goal, founding a religion, takes way too much luck. I'm all for a challenging UHV for an African civ. It should be challenging to take a civilization that was . .. .. .. .ed over by history to a great level, it's fun that way. But completely relying on luck simply is not a test of skill and is not fun at all. Having to reload and wait 15 minutes until you get a lucky start where Christianity is within reason is too much.

I think a Zulu scenario, although they were practically considered barbarians, would be a lot more interesting replacement. At any rate, Ethiopia really needs to be replaced or reworked.

 

[AnotherPacifist]

A good mod would take the impis and native cities in Africa (not America) and make them Zulu after the year 1000, but not allow them to build any settlers or troops, and you only gain troops by buying them (i.e. like the Barbarians mod) or whipping them (to reflect slavery), besides auto spawns of impis outside any other civs' areas like it is currently. UHV goals:
1. Control Ethiopia and Egypt by year 1400
2. Control Mali and Carthage by year 1700
3. Allow no non-African settlements in the whole of Africa after 1820 (around the time of Shaka's ascension).

 

[astrognash]

See the problem with Zulu inclusion is that they are similar to the NAtive Americans: they weren't much of a nation. The Zulu still even exist, yet there is no Zulu Kingdom.
Perhaps if it was possible to create a confederation, where you control only one city, and the rest are AI, but on your team, we could add Zulu and Native America.

 

[Grishnash]

Well, I wasn't going to post in here but, oh well...
First off. Zulus. You are all wrong! (Sorry for being rude)
But don't feel to bad because for the longest time I thought the same thing. The Zulus were NOT barbarians in ANY way aside

4. (in ancient and medieval periods) a. a non-Greek.
b. a person living outside, esp. north of, the Roman Empire.
c. a person not living in a Christian country or within a Christian civilization.

5. (among Italians during the Renaissance) a person of non-Italian origin.

They had a real Empire. Cities, schools everything a Empire had, in fact, they were one of the largest Empires in the world. In NO WAY were they barbarians. And I just had to say that because when I read that I was like "You have GOT to be kidding me!!!"

The Zulu still even exist, yet there is no Zulu Kingdom.

The Goth still exist, yet there is no Goth kingdom, there are a lot of kingdoms that fell, leaving behind only it's people...
Two. Again, Zulus, this time in CiVrfc)
The Zulus could VERY WELL be put into the game, at around 1500AD, yes, just give them lots of Impi, hopefully Euro will have cities for them to take over down there (Or natives), it could very well work.
Two, you can have them as the Great Zimbabwe Empire, maybe have them start sooner.
or Three you could have the Mutapa Empire, starting sometime before 500AD(or 500AD)
Starting location(For all three) would be, either, where Zimbabwe pops up, or a bit south west from there.
UHV, could be, no europeans on south africa before 1800AD, no cities lost to europeans(or maybe, just no cities lost) before 1800AD and no outside culture within the historical Mutapa empire area(all of modern-day Zimbabwe, Mozambique and all the land between the Zambezi and Limpopo rivers of Southern Africa) or any standing city by 1800AD.

There, you have the "Zulus", but they really are not on the same page as Ethiopia, so replacing Ethiopia with them, not the best Idea.


about ethiopia falling into a civil-war: When did Ethiopia fall into a civil-war anything like in RfC? Ethiopia was one of the longest(if not the longest) lasting civilizations in the world. So, it's kind of dumb that it rarely ever last more then 100turns.
And Egypt lasted till around 343BC before they fell to outside invaders, yet they never last long at all.

If your not playing as one of the African nations, it's MOST likely they'll fall into civilwars before gunpowder. With the small chance of Mali mking it up to becoming a France Vassal (which I think is dumb, france should have to fight to vassal mali)