Happy to see there are others using their time to redevelop and reimagine RFCE.
Thank you for your extensive commentary! There's a lot of ideas suggested over the years for RFCE to be studied indeed.
Most of issues you stated with the civ list were discussed either in the thread, or in "some words on gameplay" in opening post. For most part, I still stand for the list I defined as it is the result of much research and contemplation on how it all should play out on the map specifically tailored for it.
I agree about Ostrogoths and Vandals, they were listed as highly optional exactly because they are not really needed. But Visigoths proved to be longlasting and important of "barbarian kingdoms", second only to Franks. Even if initially Visigoths can be added as unplayable, they still are deserving to be a civ to settle and develop Iberia for better Andalusian Cordoba start.
Concerning Papal States. If it would be made playable (with their Cardinal UU) and there will be Lombardy, Papal States better be starting in 756, that's more historically correct as well.
I chose earliest starting date for Serbia, 780, so it would start as basic dark age pagan kingdom for more gradual, "Civilization sandbox-like" development (that's generally applies to most early dates) and for more varied early medieval gameplay. Moreover, already during IX-X centuries Serbia was notable regional power to counterbalance Bulgaria in the Balkans. I can see merits of 1091 starting date, I just think it would be more interesting gameplay to gradually establish Serbia while maneuvering between Bulgaria and Byzantium, instead of just starting and flipping bunch of developed cities in 1091 (still, Serbia will respawn in 1091 if it was conquered earlier).
I'm strongly standing for 788 start for Morocco. Not just because Idrisid Emirate is regarder as the first Moroccan state that laid profound groundwork for Moroccan history and culture, but for better gameplay as well. With start in 1040, Moroccan gameplay feels way too rushed in existing RFCE in my opinion, considering the need to simultaneously develop pristine lands and conquer both the whole Maghreb and al-Andalus overseas. With 788 start, while having humble starting army, Morocco will have plenty of time to build both the economy and army for grand campaigns of Almoravids and Almohads.
The same goes for 800 start for Tunis. Aghlabid Emirate is regarded as the first Tunisian state, with its capital Kairouan being crucially important early center of Islamic culture in Maghreb, while the civ will also flip Carthago renaming it to Tunis at spawn. But earlier starting date is needed not only to represent this early developed Ifriqiya (that is worth of representing in itself), but also for very interesting gameplay of Islamic conquest of Sicily and southern Italy. 1229 starting date as Hafsids lacks all of this gameplay and historical goals, and is very late.
I stand for 868 start for Egypt for similar reasons. Tulunids, even if they were short-lived, are regarded as pivotal dynasty that reestablished independent Egypt for the first time since Ptolemids. Moreover, with Tulunid start, Egypt civ can flip only Nile valley without any historicity issues, while Fatimid start historically requires Egypt to flip all of African coast all the way to Ifriqiya (where Fatimids actually originated), contradicting the principle that atleast starting conditions of civs should be largely historically correct (and that a civ optimally should flip only its core area). Also, instead of Qata'i that I designated as the initial name of the capital of Egypt in the original post, it should be Fustat, renaming to al-Qahirah (Cairo) on entering High Medieval era. Earlier start just allows Egypt civ to start as Egypt, without additional complications.
Tuscany should start in 846 exactly because it initially represents Marquisate of Tuscany led by Matilda of Canossa, not just commune of Florence, whence flipping Pisa at spawn as well. And because with 846 start Tuscany will have much more time to develop for Medieval and Renaissance economic and cultural powerhouse, utilising its rich core area.
Huh, I'm surprised someone actually seriously considered Barbary (Algeria) civ, the Ziyyanids as you noted. This civ is really highly optional, and I think we can do without third Maghreb civ. Though I of course am not against adding it eventually, it just doesn't have much priority. Reasons for earlier start are the same as for civs above. And it precisely is intended to give Morocco additional adversary for its UHV, and to serve as buffer between it and Tunis (and for most of history there actually usually was some separate "middle Maghreb" state between the two).
For all of the above, some common reason can be states for earlier start: I think it is better to make more civs start earlier, especially during early game, to fill the map faster, particularly around Mediterranean, that really should become developed earlier than most of Europe as it historically was until Renaissance era. Other than "filling the map", more early civs should provide for more interesting diplomacy and gameplay interactions, instead of just few lonely civs with bunch of independent cities and barbarians. This particularly applies to Muslim civs, with more (5) of them during early game representing development and complex politics of Islamic Golden age, instead of just Arabia and Cordoba on opposite sides of the map in current RFCE.
Germany really never existed as unified entity until Bismarck (and if we consider Austria and Switzerland as part of cultural Germany, then it never existed at all), and all German empires always were more or less decentralised culminating in modern Federal Republic. Lotharingia, Bavaria, Saxony and Swabia, and later Austria and Prussia all represent both major states/dynasties and German regional cultures, that always coexisted and competed with other, only occasionally sharing common interests and policies. But the main reason for dividing Germany is gameplay, as in current RFCE Germany more often than not completely dominates Central (and often all of) Europe far longer than any historical period of stable HRE, often kicking all smaller civs. Problems of unified Germany civ far outweigh any issues with several German civs, that is just better both historically and gameplay-wise. The map is designed in such a way that all of these civs would have atleast around 4 cities during period of their main relevancy, with more cities around to settle or conquer. It can be written more and more about why there should not be unified Germany civ, particularly if have divided France with Burgundy and Aquitaine, and other smaller regional civs, but I just invite you recheck my opening post.
Mechanics you described are interesting, but I think normal RFC(DoC) mechanics, with expanded array of civs, would work just fine without additional complications.
Yeah, the whole concept is about giving possibility to many "unique scenarios" of who will get the upper hand among many regionally competing civs, not only in France.
About many Rus civs, my main idea is that they (excluding Novgorod, Lithuania, Muscovy and Ukraine) will share UB, UU and 1-2 of their UHVs, one of them being like "control or vassalize all Rus by 1250", that can be done only after all of the Rus civs appear. If we make historically accurate Kievan Rus in existing RFCE, as I did years ago, this leads to it becoming way too powerful (situation similar to unified Germany civ), having a lot of cities. In my concept, gameplay is actually more intricate and more historical, with Kiev civ representing not all of pre-Mongol Rus, but primarily the more or less unified Rurikid principality state that existed for about 200 years until mid XI century, disintegrating into several principalities afterwards. After that, with other Rus civs gradually spawning and flipping parts of Kievan lands and cities, Kievan civ is reduced to mostly the city itself and few other cities around (and afar that weren't flipped), with main advantage over new upstart Rus civs being its well developed core area, particularly the capital, that has highest concentration of resources. It is completely normal and historical if this reduced Kievan civ will be destroyed in wars with other Rus civs, with the Kiev itself being conquered, as it was multiple times in real history, especially in XII-XIII centuries. In short, what makes Kievan civ special among other Rus civs is its early starting date and highly productive core area (that should lead to it colonising vast territories that will flip away later, with one Kievan UHV being like "Slavic colonization: settle (found atleast one city in) 20 provinces"). It is not some "main" Rus civ with others being unplayable sidekicks, it is just the elder of the equals (Novgorod is even older, but it will have its own gameplay, UU, UB and UHVs). In case of the Rus it is especially acceptable to have "messy feudalism", with many cities being cut off by territory of other civs. While Kiev starts and expands first, other Rus civs (Polotsk, Chernigov, Volhynia, Smolensk and Suzdal) all will have their advantage by flipping bigger and smaller, more and less developed territories at spawn, with Suzdal, being the last, flipping the largest territory along Volga and Klyazma rivers. Yes, I actually thought about adding Ryazan to this list, but I think it wasn't as important, appearing and becoming relevant only later and being largely contained within its territory (near the very border of the map), without aspirations for all-Rus hegemony that the principalities I consider worth adding had. Murom-Ryazan will be contested territory between Kiev (if it settles it beforehand), Chernigov and Suzdal.
I think Ukraine, as Cossack Hetmanate, should be separate civ, not respawn of Kiev (by the way, as I see there are no "respawn versions" of civs in modern DoC engine unlike the old one. All civs are fully separate). It has different spawn and core area (downstreams the Dnieper, south-east of Kiev and Chernigov) and I actually envision possible coexistence of both Kiev and Ukraine, if Kiev manages to survive as, for example, Lithuanian or Polish vassal Voivodeship of Kiev.
Wallachia doesn't really overlap with Bulgaria. Territorially, they occupy the opposite sides of Danube (my map is big enough and specifically was designed to properly have both civs). Temporarily, Wallachia appears just before Bulgaria historically is intended to be conquered by the Ottomans. Wallachia should be present, alongside Moldavia, due to its long existence for centuries, even if as a buffer vassal state between Hungary and Ottomans, and later Habsburgs and Russia; as well due to its leading role in unification of Rumania. Moreover, what about such cool leaders as Vlad Dracul and Mihai the Brave?
First of all, there isn't enough space in England to allow for Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria and other Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (as well as Gwynedd-Wales) to properly coexist as full civs. They all will have no more than 1-2 cities (likely only one with the second city being contested with neighbours), meanwhile denying any freedom of city placement with their capitals (particularly Wessex with Winchester and Mercia with Tamworth in the Midlands). Secondly, I consider the way England is implemented in existing RFCE to be one of some "hits in the mark" it has, by representing Anglo-Saxon and other island kingdoms with independent cities, providing good target for Norway to raid and Denmark to capture for their UHVs. Having 1066 start for England as Anglo-Norman civ has much more merits. It represents the definitive end of squabbles between petty Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and Norse conquerors, and emergence of a unified major political entity with European significance. It gives England Normandy as a foothold on the continent, organically and historical leading to expansion here (what should we do otherwise, add Normandy as separate civ with UHV of conquering England? And how England should be represented afterwards?). Also, I think the English culture that exists to this day originates with 1066 conquest, as a result of heavy Romance influence on Germanic Anglo-Saxon basis. All in all, I hope I made it clear why England should keep 1066 Anglo-Norman start.
Naples is already represented by Sicily civ, if it loses the island or respawns.
Latin Empire, Cyprus and other Crusader states are represented by proper civs like France, England, or Aquitaine, conquering cities in the Levant.
Cilicia is too small, although possible as conditional minor one (still not really worth taking a civilization slot ingame).
Golden Horde (or more properly Ulus Jochi) has Lower Volga as its core area, that is outside the map that is used in the development. And I wrote extensively in a post above why it is not really feasible to both have close detalisation-attention to Western and Southern Europe alongside full map of Europe. I envision Golden Horde being represented by popup mechanic for Eastern European civs, asking you to pay gold or soldiers, or get sizeable stack of keshiks and other units spawn on your border.
Navarre is literally one city-region, even if it was a dynamic kingdom for some time, it is not worth being a separate civ.
Brittany potentially can be a minor civ without expansionism, as it stayed with its 2-3 cities for centuries, but I don't see it being really worth taking the civilization slot.
Bosnia is a bit too much. Croatia, alongside Serbia and Bulgaria, is enough for Slavic Balkans.
All in all, I find it really bizarre that you simultaneously doubt why Germany should be divided into several civs, while suggesting considering adding literally one-city civs.
P.S. I somehow missed this idea before, but modern DoC engine that is intended to be used as the base for this new RFCE allows dynamic civilization slots, so we actually can have no issue with early civs like Visigoths as the slot will be reused by some later, more longlasting, civ. So my full list of around 54 civs is fairly possible with only around 30-40 being simultaneously ingame.
All of this, however, is just playing with ideas...
Thank you for your interest and attention, Baron, you seem like an old and experienced player!
(I wish I hadn’t used up so much time on that, haha). Since there’s a lot of desert tiles from the Sahara, it may help to create a secondary impassible ‘Sahara’ tile so units don’t wander endlessly in the bottom of the map. Same suggestion for northern sections of the map by having dense forest tiles that are impassible. This also helps to prevent over settling.
I remember when 3Miro still headed the entire project before Absinthe took over. You’re welcome.
