TSL not possible in Civilization

[historix69]

North America is topheavy in every analysis, so I would support the idea of adding multiple "Native American" civs to balance the game.

Spoiler :

(The native tribes of Canada, near the Great Lakes and East Coast are not on this map.)

Maybe we should go back to Civ1 and remember what Sid asked :
"Can You build an empire/civilization to stand the test of time?"

As far as I know the native american societies did not develop that kind of iron working/metallurgy as the (connected) european/north-african/middle east/asian societies. Working soft metalls like silver, gold and copper (by hammering) was known, but working bronce (alloy), iron or steal by smelting was not. So they missed most of the technolgies with iron like weapons, armours, tools ... and later guns ... like many of the african native tribes, too ...

 

[Nixalo]

The issue is less of a problem as European coastal civs will get naval techs early and forward settle the hell out of North America. After England takes their Islands, I see them rushing to the Canada as France and their neighbors will suck up the main parts of Europe. Coastal civs will get naval tech fast with Eurekas.

America, 2 Native American civs, and a few English/Danish/Spanish forward settles would crowd up the good parts of North America fast.

 

[nunor]

You may want to check this page for a list of ethnic groups in the world : http://worldmap.harvard.edu/maps/1894 or here http://jcfrei.com/ethnicities-of-the-world/#
or have a look at this (huge) map

Spoiler :

it really is huge

I didn't know that map, loved it. Thanks!

 

[Minor Annoyance]

What the hell is TSL?
Edit: Never mind. Found someone who used the full phrase, but seriously people, use the long form ONCE in a post.
Wasn't as bad as reading six pages talking about CE vs SE and not knowing what they mean even from context, but still. Three words, then abbreviate.

 

[Liex]

What the hell is TSL?

True Start Location. Custom Earth maps where each civ starts at its historical, true location.

 

[nunor]

What the hell is TSL?
Edit: Never mind. Found someone who used the full phrase, but seriously people, use the long form ONCE in a post.
Wasn't as bad as reading six pages talking about CE vs SE and not knowing what they mean even from context, but still. Three words, then abbreviate.

We expect everyone to know about this page so that we don't have to do it.

 

[m15a]

True Start Location. Custom Earth maps where each civ starts at its historical, true location.

Also portions of Earth (e.g. Europe and surrounding areas, or Asia, or the Americas).

And "each civ" doesn't necessarily mean each civ in that version of Civ - just each civ in that particular scenario/setup.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

We expect everyone to know about this page so that we don't have to do it.

Moderator Action: Inappropriate language removed. Please use more care in the language you use as we try to keep it family friendly.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

TSL in the first place means "True Starting Locations" on a real Earth Map.

Thanks by the way.
This guy gets it.

 

[killmeplease]

You should divide Europe into different regions and allocate civs per region :
- Northern Europe : {Iceland, Scandinavia} + {Ireland, England, Scotland}
- Central Europe : France, Germany, (England) ...
- Mediterranean Region/Southern Europe : Spain/Portugal, (France), Rome/Italy, Greece/Byzantium/(Turkey)
- Eastern Europe : Poland, Hungary, Russia, ...

Regarding Turkey/Osmans I would suggest letting the turks start in Turkmenistan (east of Caspian Sea) so they can replay their historic migration/conquest ... (like in Civ4 TSL GEM) ... this would also give Constantinople some thousand additional years to live ...

well maybe there should be exclusive civs like in civ1-2 (sharing one colour) but for a reason, e.g. Celts and French - so you wont meet both in one game.

Turks may be exclusive with Byzantines or really start in central asia.

To represent nomadic 'civs' which arent really civs, there could be a barbarian stage, before you have found the first city but can create camps and military units, research some basic techs and conquer.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't play TSL usually, but here are some thoughts about balance. On such map some civs will start with a lot of space and some will start with a lot of neighbors. That's unavoidable. The core thing to balance is to have those situations more or less equal. This would be useful for random maps too.

The problem here is - without tech trading it's hard to make tight placement viable. Resource trading is good, but I don't think it could compensate expansion, especially since in Civ6 we seem to not have that hard expansion limits.

 

[killmeplease]

I don't play TSL usually, but here are some thoughts about balance. On such map some civs will start with a lot of space and some will start with a lot of neighbors. That's unavoidable. The core thing to balance is to have those situations more or less equal. This would be useful for random maps too.

The problem here is - without tech trading it's hard to make tight placement viable. Resource trading is good, but I don't think it could compensate expansion, especially since in Civ6 we seem to not have that hard expansion limits.

there should be some form of tech (and cultural?) diffusion
civ5 had science caravans and tech discounts but that was very weak
civs in crowded locations should progress faster so they wont be easily overrun by civs which have alot of space to expand.

 

[Chiyo]

I don't think the civs part of the game should be based on a TSL map. I want to play against civilizations and leaders I know. Playing only against Songhai caliber opponents makes me feel like playing BE. I want the Romans, France, Germany, Greece, England, Russia and so on.

For me what makes a civilization is that it stands the test of time. Egypt might not have Pharaos anymore but we still see the Pyramids and know a lot about the history of the civ because they left documents. We still know about Babylon and its code of laws although today it is only a tiny city in Iraq. That is what makes it interesting for me. Not that somebody lived in some area but did not leave anything notewhorthy to people who are not extremely into history.

 

[albie_123]

Having more than one NA-native civ is redundant from the perspective of a game which relies on generalizing things. They do not have the known history of a France vs Germany or China vs Japan that make it worthwhile including such civs even though they are very close to each other.

The fact that you don't personally know their history does not mean they don't have any or that it's not 'worthwhile'.

What's more,

If you can represent them without all being horse-conqueror types then great but otherwise they are not distinctive enough due to having had a short period of success/relevance. Hence... Mongols representing them all.

Many of those peoples who you affectionately call "horse-botherers", such as the Timurids, Seljuks and Khazars, have been more "successful" and "relevant" in terms of global history (if we define success and relevance as having the greatest impact on a large percentage of their regional, and the global, population of the time, combined with 'doing the most stuff', which is basically what you're getting at - and is a horrible metric regardless) for a longer period of time than most of the European nations previously in Civilization ever have.

Let me put it this way: You, and others in this thread, clearly feel that other peoples aren't worthy of inclusion due to the fact their history isn't well known or appreciated. Perhaps inclusion in a game like Civilization is a way to make their history known? How many of us can honestly say we knew about the Songhai before Civ V's release? Isn't making people more aware of the histories of other peoples they may not have ever encountered a good thing?

 

[killmeplease]

How Seljuks and Khazars are relevant? What technologies had they developed, what great works and wonders created? killing and plundering does not count for being civilized.

 

[nunor]

{mod]...snip...[/mod]


Thanks by the way.
This guy gets it.

I get your username now.
Moderator Action: You are responsible for everything you post, including quotes from others. Please be more careful of what you quote, and beware personal comments as they are trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[albie_123]

How Seljuks and Khazars are relevant? What technologies had they developed, what great works and wonders created? killing and plundering does not count for being civilized.

Yeah, see, the fact you consider the history of the Seljuks and Khazars consisting purely of 'killing and plundering' is precisely why we need more representation of different cultural groups.

 

[killmeplease]

Yeah, see, the fact you consider the history of the Seljuks and Khazars consisting purely of 'killing and plundering' is precisely why we need more representation of different cultural groups.

you didnt answer my question. what did they created beside their short lived empires?

 

[albie_123]

you didnt answer my question. what did they created beside their short lived empires?

First off, "short lived" is just under two centuries in the case of the Seljuks, and around three centuries in the case of the Khazars. That's much longer than most of the European empires ever held dominance.

The Seljuqs left plenty of examples of their architecture across Anatolia and Persia, and in the case of the Khazars, there have been excavations across Western Russia revealing massive fortresses, but does culture not count as a valuable creation, or is it just big buildings that matter? The Seljuks specifically are the root of much of Turkish and modern Iranian culture, and while not much has survived what is left of Seljuq art and craft is pretty remarkable, and the Khazars stand out as the sole Jewish empire of European history, acting as a bridge between Asia and Europe not just economically but culturally.

EDIT: I want to stress I'm not trying to imply that the Khazars, Seljuqs and Timurids are somehow more worthy of entry in Civilization than the usual suspects (Rome, Greece, China, etc.). I'm also not trying to imply that their legacy is greater than the usuals, either. I'm trying to point out that while yes, it is of course good from a historical and commercial perspective to include the traditionally 'great' civilizations, and there's no reason to get rid of them, there is definite value in including the histories of groups who have been forgotten, marginalized or (in some cases) erased.

 

[killmeplease]

First off, "short lived" is just under two centuries in the case of the Seljuks, and around three centuries in the case of the Khazars. That's much longer than most of the European empires ever held dominance.

The Seljuqs left plenty of examples of their architecture across Anatolia and Persia, and in the case of the Khazars, there have been excavations across Western Russia revealing massive fortresses, but does culture not count as a valuable creation, or is it just big buildings that matter? The Seljuks specifically are the root of much of Turkish and modern Iranian culture, and while not much has survived what is left of Seljuq art and craft is pretty remarkable, and the Khazars stand out as the sole Jewish empire of European history, acting as a bridge between Asia and Europe not just economically but culturally.

peoples like french, english, russian formed in medieval times and have existed for around millenia even if they not always were "imperial". did anybody heard of seljuks or khazars after their empires fell? they were assimilated into other cultures. and seljuks were persianized even before that. those buildings were created by persian architectors, not seljuk. and khazars havent built anything noteworthy. earthworks - ok, not impressive. craft, trade? everyone did that.

Sarkel (or Sharkil, literally white house in Khazar language)[1] was a large limestone-and-brick fortress built by the Khazars with Byzantine assistance in the 830s

i know they were a "fresh" people and had to start with something.
but if e.g. russia was destroyed by mongols in 1200 and then colonized by sweden it wouldnt be "worthy" of inclusion too.

 

[Malchar]

Spoiler :

(The native tribes of Canada, near the Great Lakes and East Coast are not on this map.)

Maybe we should go back to Civ1 and remember what Sid asked :
"Can You build an empire/civilization to stand the test of time?"

As far as I know the native american societies did not develop that kind of iron working/metallurgy as the (connected) european/north-african/middle east/asian societies. Working soft metalls like silver, gold and copper (by hammering) was known, but working bronce (alloy), iron or steal by smelting was not. So they missed most of the technolgies with iron like weapons, armours, tools ... and later guns ... like many of the african native tribes, too ...

Not every civ will be a winner, but that should be decided through playing the game. If everything is deterministic, then it's not a game. Should we remove Aztec and Maya since they weren't as advanced as the Europeans? Should we remove Babylon, Egypt, Rome, and Greece since they didn't reach the industrial era?

In a practical sense, if you only have one native civ in North America, then they would be able to grow much more powerful than historical. Without competition, they could expand over the entire US and Canada. It would be like if you only had one or two civs for all of Europe. Large areas of arable land need to be balanced with multiple civs to fight amongst each other.

Edit: I also had a lot of trouble figuring out what TSL means. I had to read through the first 5 or 6 posts before someone actually spelled it out. Explaining it in the original post should be a common courtesy if you want to attract new members to the forum.