What other Civs would you like to see added to DoC

[Leoreth]

I think the point here is more about how to deal with lots of civilisations in the game. Some will by the very nature of this setup be small.

 

[MechatronicJazz]

Jumping back to the suggestions for an Iroquois civ, I don't think they should necessarily get decimated by plague immediately on contact with a European civ. They certainly got hit hard, but they remained a regional power arguably until the American Revolution, at which point the Confederation splintered partially based on whether to support the British or Americans in the war. Could make for some interesting dynamics if they are ever included.

 

[Patine]

Jumping back to the suggestions for an Iroquois civ, I don't think they should necessarily get decimated by plague immediately on contact with a European civ. They certainly got hit hard, but they remained a regional power arguably until the American Revolution, at which point the Confederation splintered partially based on whether to support the British or Americans in the war. Could make for some interesting dynamics if they are ever included.

Again, the slaves to historical progression. Who the Hell wants to play a civ in this style of game with a pre-set, almost guaranteed blade of doom over it, while others have unlimited (or theoretically unlimited) potential? I know how things went in history - I'm a consummate armchair historian as one of my biggest hobbies. But I don't want to be shackled so strictly to historical progression of events in this kind of form in a Civ-series game, where you're supposed to be able to (according to Sid Meier's design guide starting way back with Civ1) take any civ from the end of the Stone Age to the Information Age and greatness and victory! What happened to that?

 

[Leoreth]

If you want to take any civ from the Stone Age then RFC is probably not the best mod for that.

 

[1SDANi]

Again, the slaves to historical progression. Who the Hell wants to play a civ in this style of game with a pre-set, almost guaranteed blade of doom over it, while others have unlimited (or theoretically unlimited) potential? I know how things went in history - I'm a consummate armchair historian as one of my biggest hobbies. But I don't want to be shackled so strictly to historical progression of events in this kind of form in a Civ-series game, where you're supposed to be able to (according to Sid Meier's design guide starting way back with Civ1) take any civ from the end of the Stone Age to the Information Age and greatness and victory! What happened to that?

I'm not sure if you've ever played this mod, but your idea of what a civ game should be is the exact opposite of what is currently implemented in this mod.

 

[Lone Wolf]

It's possible to take Egypt, Babylon and other civs to modern age, even if the challenges will occasionally seem unfair. At least, that's how it was when I last played RFC-DoC.

 

[Leoreth]

Sure. However Patine seems to criticise the very concept of the impediments thrown against these kinds of civs. I'm sure nobody ever suggested to have players lose the game if they even tried to play the Iroquois past the American revolution for example.

 

[mccp77]

Jumping back to the suggestions for an Iroquois civ, I don't think they should necessarily get decimated by plague immediately on contact with a European civ. They certainly got hit hard, but they remained a regional power arguably until the American Revolution, at which point the Confederation splintered partially based on whether to support the British or Americans in the war. Could make for some interesting dynamics if they are ever included.

I've gone searching on this to see if it was feasible. (Unfortunately in IR we don't spend alot of timing learning about the geopolitics of the Iroquois. )

The territory issue actually isn't an issue. From what I've found, Iroquois territory during the Beaver Wars was actually quite extensive. And their expansion lasted over a century. However, I ran into one issue that I think disqualifies them from civ status: demographics. This can be subdivided into 2 subpoints:

1. The entire confederacy never numbered more than 15,000 individuals, and that is a very generous estimate.

2. Their capitol was tiny -- too small to be considered a "city." When the Americans raized it in 1776 it included 50 longhouses. That's a total population of about 2,500 people. And it was their only real "city" of note.

I think to be considered a civilization, you must produce large, permanent settlements -- aka -- cities.

 

[AtlantaMarty]

But if you add Assyria some jerk named inthesomeday will demand they get a modern respawn as Syria

Assyria has nothing to do with modern Syria - Assyrians still exist today, and they are a Christian group, unlike Muslim Syrians.
It would be like having Rome respawn as Libya.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Regarding the Iroquois, perhaps we could do something with their Unique Ability to encourage settling many small cities and not growing them? Maybe something like "Cities with only one population point cost zero number of cities maintenance".

 

[mccp77]

Assyria has nothing to do with modern Syria - Assyrians still exist today, and they are a Christian group, unlike Muslim Syrians.
It would be like having Rome respawn as Libya.

pretty sure it was a joke .... (i hope)

 

[mccp77]

Regarding the Iroquois, perhaps we could do something with their Unique Ability to encourage settling many small cities and not growing them? Maybe something like "Cities with only one population point cost zero number of cities maintenance".

doesn't work. they literally had 1 city w a population of 2,500 people. the total population of the federation was miniscule. they're definitely better as barbarian spawns.

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

With the new bigger map, could we have some balkan civ please? I would really like a Yugoslavia civ, if only (apart from the obvious) to have Slavoj Zizek as a Great Person in the game.

 

[Leoreth]

Hungary?

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

But Austria already is in the game?

 

[Leoreth]

That's like saying we don't need Serbia because the Ottomans are already in the game.

 

[DC123456789]

Why Serbia/Yugoslavia? If a South Slavic civ is wanted Bulgaria would probably make much more sense, though it would still be very cramped regardless.

 

[1SDANi]

On the iroquois topic, perhaps their cities cannot grow and their culture cannot expand beyond their cities, but food, happiness, and health contributes to production?

 

[Imperator Knoedel]

Why Serbia/Yugoslavia? If a South Slavic civ is wanted Bulgaria would probably make much more sense, though it would still be very cramped regardless.

Because:

1. Tito
2. Zizek

 

[mccp77]

That's like saying we don't need Serbia because the Ottomans are already in the game.

We don't. ........ bc the Byzantines and Ottomans are in the game. The economic core of both empires was the Danubian basin which empties into the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara. The highlands of Anatolia weren't exactly an en vogue territory -- hence why the Turks were left with it after WW1 (nobody else wanted it).

I might actually be able to think of a dozen other civs that should come first. (If Serbia should be added at all.)