Discussion in 'Rhye's and Fall - Dawn of Civilization' started by AtlantaMarty, Apr 18, 2017.
So you are saying Yugoslavia should be a Byzantine respawn? I like it!
Did not say that ........ I could live with it ........ but it's still ridiculous. Yugoslavia wasn't exactly a major power.
Wouldn't Hungary and Serbia make Central and SE Europe too crowded, even with the new map?
Though if a South Slavic civ is really wanted, Serbia/Yugoslavia is the best choice, given their massive influence on events of the early 20th century...
seconded on the "not enough room" point. i did however want to push back on all of the Serbia talk. The Bulgarian empire overlapped with its territory in many regards, both the first and second Bulgarian empires were key regional powers, and they lasted longer (681 - 1422) when their history is combined and the 200 year period of Byzantine rule is omitted.
Yugoslavia never really had any influence beyond its own borders, and I'm not sure "starting WW1" should get you into the game.
However, Bulgaria's respawn could have a dynamic name like "Yugoslavia" if that will satiate the "Yugo-lovers." (I also think we should give 50pts to Gryffindor for me creating that new term, "Yugo-lover.")
Setting off the war that shaped European and World history and politics for 80 years is pretty influential, IMHO.
Regardless, they still played a rather minor role in the war itself. Civ doesn't model the specific reasons for any particular war.
We should probably have one more civ in Central/Southern/Eastern Europe with the new map - not sure who though
The only civ that could deserve a place in that area is Hungary, because:
-it survived across 6-7 centuries from Middle Age to early Renaissance;
-it could have 2 cities in its core (Buda and Beograd);
-it could have a funny role in that area between Byzs, HRE, Poland and Ottomans.
Btw, the civ that will be there should respawn as modern pan-slavic civ.
We already have Austria, and Belgrade is a Serbian city, not Hungarian. I think that if @Leoreth wants another civ there, Serbia is the best candidate.
Austria =/= Hungary. Austria conquered Hungary.
Serbia would have exactly one city for most of the game. If not even RFCE considers it important enough to put it in, I really don't think that DoC should.
I think Bulgaria could manage 2 cities wide or 3 cramped. They also controlled Serbia at several points. Hungary was the same size and shorter historical duration than Bulgaria, and Bulgaria's role in world history seems bigger to me as a foil to the Byzantines for so long. Hungary is best known for taking part in German wars and getting their teeth smashed in by the Mongols and Ottomans. (No offense to any Hungarians.)
Some would argue that there were structural reasons for that war too, and that it was inevitable. That the spark which ignited the wood just happened to be a Serbian doesn't make Serbia worthy of inclusion.
50 points to Gryffindor.
Serbia is probably the last of the involved countries to be "credited" with setting off the war. Unless you count trying not to be forcibly annexed as military aggression.
Actually I think Serbia should be in RFCE. It's quite interesting in that time period and scale.
But now justify why Serbia should go in over Bulgaria or Hungary? Those civs at least make sense to me bc they would have 2 cities or 3 cities cramped.
2nd issue -- as long as we're jumping on the 1 city bandwagon why not Israel? Why not Armenia? Why not Samarkand? etc.
Where is the clear brightline for what should and shouldn't be included?
Finally, 3rd issue (and nobody has addressed this) -- the Balkans was the core of the Ottoman empire. The Danubian basin was their most economically productive territory, and the Balkans is where they got most of their soldiers from. It's not a coincidence that 30 years after losing the Balkans that the enpire fell apart. How do we add a Balkans civ without nerfing any historicity for the Ottomans? My only answer is that this civ must be medieval focused and collapse before 1400ish. Serbia was not the most signficant mideival state only existing for a century or 2.
Bulgaria and Hungary already are in RFCE so I don't have to.
My criterion for civ inclusion is not size, but whether they would make for an interesting game experience. On that count Israel or Armenia are way more interesting (and tbh historically relevant) than Serbia is.
I'm referring to the assassination of the Archduke, not any military actions.
I'd love to see Armenia in DoC, but I think even the new map is too small.
The Ottomans, at least as of 1.14, hold on to too much territory for too long. Greece should have respawned by 1850 about 90% of the time, but I've only seen it once in like 30 playthroughs. Perhaps modern Greece should be a scripted respawn like Peru and Mexico?
Of course, but Belgrade was under Hungarian control, Budapest was never controlled by Serbia.
that was just Some Guy
No, I want to have less scripted spawns, not more.
I don't really think modern Greece is important enough to justify a scripted respawn. That's like script killing the Ottomans. The South Americans are more important in that they're not one city, and decolonization as a movement was a far bigger deal to world history than the Greek War of independence was.
With the Armenia thing, I believe we have reached the reductio ad absurdum of this disagreement.
Leoreth have you read The Sleepwalkers? Makes the argument that Serbian military intelligence started the war on purpose and that the Austrians had a point vis a vis the inability of the Serbian state to exert enough control in that area to deliver justice
Separate names with a comma.