|
Ozymandias
|
|
-- Why 1050 CE? Actualy, the starting date is an admixture of 1050-1100 CE, post-Norman Conquest AND pre-Manzikert.
The "purpose" is to (1) avoid the bizarre notion of Fedualism as an advance (2) allow almost every "familiar" historical player on the scene at least a walk-on part and (3) focus on smoother transitions along the essentially 3 Age tech tree (Dark Ages -- see note below, Age of Discovery, Industrial Age, Modern Times) and (4) how many times do you really want to disover Pottery, anyway?  -- and, really (5) an exercise in how I believe the Civ engine can best be used as an enjoyable game to "best" simulate history, without artificially forcing any outcomes!
Map will be TETurkhan's, somewhat modified.
Although there is a "Dark Ages" (during which, e.g., New World Civs, who didn't really come on the scene until not long before the Euros "discovered them", have a slow build up and cannot, on their own, hope to match Old World Civs) the three "player ages" will be "Age of Discovery" (through ca. 1750) "Industrial Age" (~1850 - 1950) and the Modern Age (~1950 - 2050). Each will have about the same number of turns (ca. 200, assuming the modified turn length/duration features work as advertised).
There are "Player" and "non-Player" Civs.
Player Civs will be --
England (good ol' 1066)
France
Germany
Scandinavia / Sweden (without berserkers, as the Vikings had chilled out by then)
Russia (Varangian-Slavic, with their capitol at Novgorod)
Byzantines (capitol at Constantinople)
Turks (capitol at Baghdad)
Magyars (Hungarians)
Arabs
India
China
Japan
Korea
Abyssinia
Khmer
... and ...
"The Holy Roman Empire". Although the name is tongue-in-cheek (the real HRE having been, as the old joke goes, neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire).
This "new" HRE will be a combined Hispano-Italian state with its capitol at Rome, for the following reasons --
1. Map space limitations.
2. The fervency of Spanish Catholicism will let them draw upon the the new "Vatican" Wonder.
3. The two were tightly allied and/or leaning towards the same side of various disputes from the Middle Ages to the present, including: Crusades, Philip's Empire, Counter-Reformation and religious wars, anti-Napoleon, the WW2 era, Nato and the EU.
Non-Player Civs will be--
1. All New World Civs (Incas, Aztecs, Mayas, Anasazi, Cahokian)
2. Venice
3. Ghana/Mali
4. Mongol
5. Berber / Nilo-Saharan
6. British Island Celts (Scots and Irish)
7. "Indonesian" (Austronesian)
So, 17 player Civs, 11 non-player, 28 in all.
Most player Civs will have ~3 - 5 starting cities, many walled to represent, e.g., the omnipresence and supremacy of castles etc. in the pre-gunpowder era.
I want to push the envelope and try out some radically new approaches --
For instance, everyone's favorite barbarian horde, the Mongols will --
1. Have a starting city (Karakorum)
2. Only be able to build their UU hordes (sorry, "horde" is just Mongol for "regiment" and I prefer the name) for a VERY long time.
3. NOT be able to build settlers and workers (although these can certainly be captured)
4. Karakorum will have a relatively rapid rate of growth
5. Each horde will require 1 pop point to build.
SO, the Mongols won't be a Civ in the usual sense -- after all, they were rather more interesting in razing cities (such a waste of good pasture!) for a very long time, they won't be easily eliminated, and should be a pain the the fill-in-the-blank for a very long time.
I'm also toying with the 1 pop cost for various feudal units, thereby, in part, simulating feudalism's extremely non-urban aspects.
I also want to starting Gov types to be "Christian Monarchy" and "Islamic Caliphate", mutually reviled.
-- MANY more thoughts to follow if anyone's interested -- and feedback is most definitely desired!
Thanks,
Oz
|
22-11-2002 21:04
|
|