1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

What other Civs would you like to see added to DoC

Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by AtlantaMarty, Apr 18, 2017.

  1. AtlantaMarty

    AtlantaMarty No longer active

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    835
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    There's no reason for me to stay here
    How about a Mongolian respawn that happens in 1600 or later if China is unstable?
    The capital could be Urga (aka Ulan Bator)

    Also, I think the Greek respawn in the 19th century should be much more likely to happen than it currently is. I've seen the Ottomans with low stability still holding on to Athens.
     
  2. mccp77

    mccp77 Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    164
    Gender:
    Male
    Top Priority should be the Assyrian people -- the warlike history of Mesopotamia for 2,500 years has been completely overlooked, and both the Sumerians and the Assyrians were linguistically and ethnically distinct from the Babylonians. If a civilization can be the most important in the world for several centuries, it deserves to be included. They should spawn in northern Mesopotamia, and Babylonia should spawn in the south. Their goals should be related to territorial conquest, technology/army size, and building the Hanging Gardens. Their unique building should be the garden, and their unique unit should be a swordsman replacement (the Assyrian legions were legendary) that is really good at taking cities (reflects their expertise in siege warfare). Their unique ability should allow them to get techs through conquest reflecting the library at Nineveh.





    Other than that, I believe the Burmese (849AD), South Africans (1931AD), Australians (1900AD), Manchu (starting not with the Jurchens in 1200, but with Jianzhou's adoption of agriculture.), and Sweden (1523AD) should also be included as time and performance permit in that order. The Burmese would reprise their historical role of being a counterweight to first the Khmer then the Thai. Their goals would be much more militarily focused than the other SE Asian states. Decolonization civs are what they are. And the Manchu are really needed to spice up the game in East Asia after the Mongols. They could be a Mongol respawn as having Mongolia survive into the modern era seems strange given their status as a protectorate of either Russia or China for most of modern history, and the Mongols were an important component of Manchu success. Sweden was a great European power and since somebody already made Sweden all of the creative work should be easier.

    Some fringe civs that could be fun, but shouldn't be core components of the mod are: Oman, Sumeria, and Vietnam.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2017
  3. star15389

    star15389 Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    476
    Problems with all of those. Strong Assyria guarantees a weak Persia and Persians are more important. Burma cramps SE Asia excessively but could be made to work with map changes. Not sure it's important enough though - Burmese controlled significant territory outside of Burma for less than thirty years! South Africa and Australia weaken England a lot, when in AI hands it's already weak even though historically it was the most powerful civ in the world for a long time. Manchu would add the most and hopefully make it easier to represent China having great tech in the classical/medieval periods but falling behind by industrial, but hard to make them work - do we just have China collapse ~90% of the time so Jurchen can pick up the pieces? Would require a late spawn around 1644 for it work because they own China's historical land and would just get crushed most of the time
     
  4. Ani Taneen

    Ani Taneen Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    273
    I think it'd be a mistake to simply say that the Persians are more important.Assyria has two drastic problems. And to be honest I'm not sure which is worse.
    • The first is the map, Assur I believe is barely one space away from Babylon, not to mention that Nineveh is on the copper mine. This creates a very small area to play in, and at the current moment the game is not rewarding for One City Challenges with limited space.
    • Speaking of limited space, there is also limited time. Unless you are at Marathon speed, the Assyrian empire will come and go in about twenty turns. That is simply not enough time for a rewarding game.
    So no, it's not that Persia is "weaker". The challenge lies in the design. I welcome you to propose to our head visioneer or to make your own mod-modmod that takes into account the challanges laid above. Remember that you will need to account for both the Phoenicians and the Babylonians in your play space.

    Also, the above mentioned challenges apply to anyone wanting a Israel/Israelite civ.

    That however does lead me to a question, why has no one mentioned the Hittites? Much bigger play map that doesn't really see much play till Byzantine empire (usually Persia, Greece, and Rome either steam roll it or ignore it), and we already have the computer spawn an independent city there to make sure the factions even care.

    - - -

    I'm gonna quote myself here:
    - - -

    The Jurchen Idea is growing on me to be honest...
     
    Publicola likes this.
  5. mccp77

    mccp77 Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    164
    Gender:
    Male


    I think that mesopotamia should be expanded south by adding one more flood plain in the Persian Gulf. That solves the space problem.

    I didn't like the Hittites bc their historic empire was never larger than one city, and I don't know how they could have non-military related UHV goals. They seem like the poster boy for a good 1 city barbarian civ.

    I also don't like Israel for the same reason. They're one-city-large, and other than religion I'm not sure what major non-military goals they could have. They just aren't more than a regional power in ancient or modern times as much as their story enamors modern onlookers.

    I suggest the Assyrians because for centuries Assyria was THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT empire in the world. It was the Rome or Persia of its day, and to ignore it seems like historical neglect. Let me put it another way -- if Thailand is important enough to merit adding another row of tiles to SE Asia, isn't the greatest civilization of its time important enough to merit adding one flood plain tile to make it viable?
     
  6. mccp77

    mccp77 Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    164
    Gender:
    Male

    Assyria -- For gameplay reasons Assyria's UU should probably be moved to earlier in the tech tree than swordsmen. Giving their UU no strength bonus but a huge city-attack bonus should greatly negate the "strong assyria, weak persia problem" which I see as a not entirely unfounded criticism.

    Burma -- On Burma, the Pagan empire was also very important in expanding into the Malay peninsula and competing with the Khmer. I think having 2 cities in Burma would be enough. Mainland SE Asia should feel small and cramped. Having it be dominated by 1 civ (Khmer or Thailand in most of my games at different times) feels very historically inaccurate.

    Manchu -- 1644 seems too late. 2 alternative dates are possible:
    a. 1599 -- this was the year Nurhaci and the Jianzhou Jurchens adopted many of the hallmarks of a "civilization" by creating a writing system and adopting Chinese metal-working techniques.
    b. 1616 -- the year the Manchu state was declared.

    I'd make their UP the Power of the Green Standard army which causes enemy units from their first war (China) to defect in large numbers. This will make China relatively easy for them to conquer despite their size. Their UU should be the Banner Cavalry, essentially a longbowman on a horse w a compound-reflexive bow that replaces the knight/something later (up for debate). UB I have no idea on, and we could probably use some input from a Chinese person who understands what was Manchu and what was Chinese bc the lines get blurry after 1644. Their UHV conditions should be:
    a. <<Insert Name here>> -- conquer or vassalize Xinjiang, Tibet, China, Korea, and mainland SE Asia by 1760AD.
    b. Chinese literature (or better name) -- settle ______ great artists by 1800AD.
    c. Population Growth (fancy name needed) -- control __% (I'd say 30 but that seems too high) of world population by 1820AD.

    Decolonization Civs -- Not sure I see a problem with a gradually weakening Britain. Britain was gradually weakening. As long as it retains its Indian territories it will stay a great power which is historically accurate. Britain only loses when it loses India or fails to conquer enough of it.
     
  7. star15389

    star15389 Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    476
    Problem is that if Asssyria conquers a lot of cities with their UU they'll have food and hammers available to build defenders. Even the relatively pacifistic Hammy with his Archer UU stymies Cryus fairly often

    SE Asia, agree that it's unfortunate we usually see only Khmer or only Thailand as native civs, but it's not uncommon to see Indonesia, Tibet, India, China, even Mughals (in addition to France and Portugal) owning cities on continental SE Asia. Feel like it's good enough for what's not that important of a region and doesn't require a new civ.

    Manchu, I was originally writing about this what so obviously a dumb idea and could never work, but having to write the reasoning made me think it's a good idea after all. A few turns before 1644 would be the best time for them to spawn, you're right. Defections are very historically accurate way to model the Qing conquest but not sure having defections would work with the AI since it would probably turtle instead of attacking if it had a smaller army than China. Perhaps something that causes cities to defect in addition to units, but might be too harsh for human China or too easy for human Manchu. Describing it like that and thinking about how the start date should really be "whenever post-Mongol China is unstable" because the Manchus were by the time they're conquering the Ming mostly Han and not Jurchen, makes me thing the Qing conquest was just a severe domestic crisis and doesn't merit a new civ after all. Changed my mind again!

    Problem is that Britain rarely conquers more than three or four cities in India, if they even manage that which they often don't. Not unusual for them to collapse before Rifling! And even when they do well, you see them build five or so cities in North America that get taken by USA and Canada, one city in SA, a few in Australia, and that's it, leading to a weak civ that never does better than third strongest in Europe and is usually much weaker. And now we want to take *all* of their colonies away except the India ones the AI can't get in the first place. It would be one thing if Canada/Australia/SA would typically be friendly to England (or even better, vassals) but more common is that they hate Vicky's guts and end up fighting the Brits instead. These countries don't even have independent foreign policies until the 1930s and ended up just supply troops to England in World War II anyway, after which they did basically nothing in civ terms. Australia and South Africa would hurt England just to create civs that only last for a tiny numbers of turns and aren't capable of winning most victory types; it's just not worth it.
     
  8. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    9,876
    Like I mentioned in another thread, Can/Aus/SA decolonization would feel less arbitrary if we created a ladder of various dependency statuses, with other outcomes than complete control/total independence being possible, even if the "independence" scale should be more weighted. There are issues with this, obviously, like who should be the overlord when multiple civs have cities in the area?
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  9. ozqar

    ozqar King

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    682
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I think that the decolonization Civs starting as vassals (including the human player) would be the ideal solution, it doesn't require adding additional dependency statuses and it would offer new play experience.

    Honestly, that England is weakened by the independence of South Africa and Australia shouldn't be an argument, as that's exactly what happened in the real world. India and Pakistan (the Mughals) should also become independent in the mid-20th Century. Instead, we should be thinking about how to help the UK (and other European civs that lost their empires) remain powerful in the late game. Namely we should think of higher capital concentration, for example with significant hammer and commerce yields from late-game buildings (and wonders and specialists).

    I think Burma would be an interesting addition, although I'd prefer Vietnam for SE Asia. Expanding the region a row east is quite possible.
     
  10. star15389

    star15389 Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    476
    We sort of have Vietnam already - when Khmer survives it's usually located there and even gets "Dai Viet" as its dynamic name
     
  11. ozqar

    ozqar King

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2011
    Messages:
    682
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yeah, I know, which is cool to see, but that's like a moribund civ only. I meant to properly have Vietnam spawning in the Hanoi area, fighting the Chinese, Mongols, and French :)
     
  12. mccp77

    mccp77 Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    164
    Gender:
    Male
    Burma is more pressing than Vietnam specifically because Khmer becomes Die Viet.
     
  13. mccp77

    mccp77 Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    164
    Gender:
    Male
    The Manchu conquest was no different than the Mongol conquest of China in terms of process. It only became something different after the conquest. If Manchu were a Mongol respawn they could automatically flip Mongolia in addition to Manchuria. Turtle problem solved.

    As for the Assyrians, is there no way to include them? I mean not including them is the historical equivalent of not including Rome or Persia.

    Finally, SE Asia is a very important region. It's probably the 4th most important after Europe, East Asia, and South Asia. Certainly it's more important than adding in civs elsewhere to fill the map? Even if there's no civs added there, I think it deserves more work. For example, shouldn't an ind city spawn in North Vietnam in 2880BC or 2 independent cities spawn in Burma instead of one or some barbarians invade Thailand in the late 1500s? I feel like SE Asia has really been breezed over, and while South Asia, East Asia, or Europe/Mid East needed more work, I understood why, but now it seems time to give it some more attention.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  14. Ani Taneen

    Ani Taneen Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    273
    There is a way, and that is to no longer have the Babylonian empire. But to accomplish that, you'll need to address the wonders that belong to it. And the fact that the Babylonians are as critical to the history as the Assyrians.

    That's a tough challenge to navigate!
     
  15. Leoreth

    Leoreth 心の怪盗団 Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    33,195
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Leblanc
    Khmer also becomes Burma if their capital moves to e.g. Pagan for some reason. I don't consider Vietnam to be a civ in the game and the Khmer dynamic name is more like a nod to them than actual representation. Interacting with Khmer "Vietnam" never feels like interacting with Vietnam, and there is no option to play as Vietnam.

    Note that as soon as player slot != civilisation, there is no functional difference in having Khmer die for good and let a Vietnamese civ take their place after collapse and just dressing up the Khmer with some Viet dynamic names. So why not do it properly.

    That's not to say that I am particularly in favour of Vietnam over other possible civs but I consider those aesthetic variants to be highly undesireable and certainly nothing that should influence the decision process of what to add or not to add.
     
  16. mccp77

    mccp77 Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    164
    Gender:
    Male
    I stand by the idea that Burma is very historically significant to SE Asia whereas Vietnam is less so. Although your point is taken.
     
  17. Steb

    Steb King

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    685
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Montréal
    I'd like to chime in in support of Assyria. As I see it, Ancient Mesopotamia is the most oversimplified area-period of the mod. While there were four major powers in the region—Sumer, Akkad, Babylon, Assyria—only one (Babylon) or two (if you consider Akkad to be represented by early Babylon) are represented by a civ generally consisting of a single large city that occasionally conquers neighboring states (Shush, Jerusalem). The warfare and shifting geopolitics of Mesopotamia are basically absent.

    Of course, the constraints on both area and time are extreme. I don't think Sumer can be done at all—it stopped existing as an independent entity around 2000 BCE, "only" a thousand years after the start of the game, and had previously been part of the Akkadian Empire for a while anyway. At most, an independent city could exist in southern Mesopotamia for Babylon/Akkad to conquer. Or, if the Babylonian capital is for some reason built at Ur or Uruk, the civ could get "Sumerian Empire" as its dynamic name.

    On the other hand, I think Assyria has a convincing case. What I would do is spawn both Assyria and Babylon (representing Akkad early on) in 3000 BCE. The cities of Babylon and Assur would be very close—perhaps separated by a single tile—and that would make it fairly likely that one would conquer the other, representing the unification of Mesopotamia as your choice of the Akkadian, Neo-Babylonian, or Neo-Assyrian Empire. If one conquers the other early on, a respawn should be possible if the conqueror becomes unstable. Uneasy coexistence would also be a strong possibility. The warfare/instability would make both regions less likely to successfully defend against Persian, Greek or Roman conquerors (compared to a Babylon that currently has not much else to do than to fortify their single mega-city).

    I don't think time is that much of a constraint if both civs spawn in 3000 BCE and have historical periods stretching to the 600s and 500s BCE. Space is the main issue. On the current map, Assur would most likely be 1N of Babylon, though you could also place it on the hill 1N of that (if not, that tile would be Nineveh). Babylon itself could be moved 1S, I think. The Euphrates could be diverted to keep flowing south of the city. This would make the area between the rivers oversized, but I think it's fine to enlarge important areas, especially if it's at the expense of the Arabian desert. A map change is not strictly necessary, however.

    Gameplay-wise, Assyria would be fun and unique in itself—the mod lacks a pre-Classical civ focused on military conquest. It would also make the game of Babylon and basically every other surrounding civ more exciting. A human Babylon would probably want to conquer Assur as soon as possible, but building a strong enough military would come at the expense of more UHV-focused stuff, making for interesting tradeoffs.

    ---

    About other civ additions, I personally have a soft spot for Sweden, which would make both an oversized Viking civ and a Scandinavia full of independents less common. It would also have a different focus than the Vikings/Denmark-Norway, which are more about early Viking raids, invasions and travels, while Sweden would shine more in the Early Modern period. It should spawn in the 11th or 12th century.

    A Central Asian civ is also a necessity, but my knowledge on the matter is not sufficient to comment further. (Not to mention that I don't think any convincing actually needs to be done.)
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2017
    Zaduzai and ales_ like this.
  18. DC123456789

    DC123456789 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    Messages:
    3,063
    Location:
    Canada
    I really don't think Assyria merits adding as a separate civ. Babylonia already adequately represents the Ancient Mesopotamian civilization.
     
  19. Malchar

    Malchar Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Messages:
    499
    Location:
    Saint Paul, Minnesota
    I would be very happy to see more civs near the beginning of the game such as Assyria. There are hardly any civs at that time period in the game. More civs would lead to more interactions and decisions. After playing 100 games with Egypt, playing an early civ really feels like playing a game of solitaire. Merely representing them as barbarians or independents doesn't provide enough interaction. Barbarians are too aggressive - spawning "randomly" and marching straight for your core in a death wave. Independents are too passive - never attacking because they feel like keeping every unit to defend their single city.
     
    Zaduzai likes this.
  20. merijn_v1

    merijn_v1 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,613
    Location:
    The city of the original vlaai
    What if both Assyria and Babylon are both playable, but only one can appear at the same time? So they more or less share the same "slot". If the player chooses one of these civs, that one will appear, but the other one doesn't. If the player isn't one of these civs, one of them will randomly be chosen or an option in globalAltDefines determines which of the two spawns.

    Babylon without Assyria will be just as it is now. Assyria without Babylon will feel very similar as Babylon is now, but with different UU/UB/UP and UHV.
     
    Zaduzai and Publicola like this.

Share This Page