Realistic Starting Nations

[Paul Saunders]

I've been thinking about this topic for some time, so I'd like to share my thoughts on this issue. First I'd like to point out two key considerations;

1. Many players want to play on a realistic world map. This indicates that many players would like to experience a reasonably realistic simulation of world history.

2. Civ3 is not a realistic simulation of world history. The scale of the game is wrong and virtually everything in the game is represented in an abstracted way. This is necessary for playability, but it does make a realistic historical experience pretty much impossible.

In spite of this obvious conflict, many players still want to experience at least some semblance of realism, and one thing that many consider to be important is realistic starting positions.

To take some obvious examples, most players believe that the English should start in England and the Americans in America. However, you don't have to think about real world history for very long to realise that the English and the Americans didn't actually start in those locations. Not only that, but the English and Americans didn't even exist at that time.

Marla Singer's world map uses what many consider to be "realistic" starting positions. One stated consequence of this is that Europe begins hotly contested, with many nations starting in close proximity to one another. It is stated that the Romans are in a bad position because they're hemmed in by the French, Germans and Greeks. Also, the English and Japanese are at a disadvantage because they are on islands and can't get off until they develop ships.

But hang on a moment, the Romans never had a problem with the French in real life, because the French didn't actually exist at that time. As for the English, they didn't start in England, they (the Angles and the Saxons as they were then) were Germanic tribes who invaded England after the Romans left. England (or more correctly, Britain) was originally occupied by the Celts, who started in Europe.

Likewise, the Americans didn't start in America, they evolved as a nation from the various European colonies that settled there.

The fact is that many of the nations represented in Civ3 did not exist at the beginning of the game, so their inclusion is unrealistic. In reality, most modern nations evolved from older nations, but this "evolution of nations" is not represented in the game. It would probably be very difficult to incorporate such a concept yet still produce a playable game.

THE EVOLUTION OF NATIONS

So how did nations evolve? Well I'm no expert on this, but considering the simplicity and abstraction of the game, I don't think it's necessary to go into it in too much detail. So here are some general observations.

EUROPE

Most European languages today fall into one of three types, Celtic, Romance, and Germanic. Welsh, Scottish and Irish are Celtic languages. French, Spanish and Italian are Romance languages. German, English, Norwegian and Swedish are Germanic languages. These languages are indicative of how the various European nations evolved.

Much of Europe was originally occupied by the Celts, who originated in south-west Germany, these were pushed north by the Romans and west by various barbarian tribes, so that the main vestiges of the Celtic empire now exist only in the north and west of Britain, and Brittany in France. Note that the name Britain comes from the Ancient Britons, who were Celts.

Then consider the Romans. French, Spanish and Italian are all Romance languages. Although the Romans spoke Latin, I don't think the similarity between the words Romance and Romans is a coincidence, since the Romans occupied those countries for a very long time. In game terms therefore, I think it's realistic to suggest that the Romans "evolved" into the French, the Spanish and the Italians.

Then there were the barbarians in the north-east, the Germanic tribes, who pushed the Celts westwards. Some of these tribes (the Angles and the Saxons) invaded Britain, and later evolved into the English (Angles = English). In the north they became the Vikings and later the Norwegians and the Swedes. Some of the Vikings headed east and eventually became the Russians. The rest became Germans, and many European countries today speak various German dialects.

The English in Britain gradually assimilated Wales, Scotland and part of Ireland to became the British, which is what Americans usually mean when they use the term "English". They should have been called "British" in the game (in fact England is labelled Britain in the Civ3 manual but they evidently decided to change it for some inexplicable reason). Haven't the Americans ever heard of the British Empire? The English never had an empire.

As for the Greeks, Alexander's empire extended to the east, and so didn't affect most of Europe.

In game terms therefore, I believe the most realistic way to begin the game would be with four nations in Europe; the Celts, the Romans, the Germans and the Greeks. Unfortunately there are no Celts in the game, but since these were mostly assimilated anyway, they may as well be represented as mere barbarians. At least that would give the remaining three nations more room to expand.

The Romans would start in Italy and move west, to effectively become the French, Spanish and Italians (although still called Romans in the game), and south to North Africa. The Germans would start in northern Germany and would spread north, west and east to control all of northern Europe, Britain and Russia. The Greeks would start in Greece and should probably head east to Turkey and beyond.

As far as terrain is concerned, most Civ map-makers provide plenty of grassland in Europe, whereas in reality, most of it was originally covered by forest. Starting an empire in a forested area isn't easy, but it wasn't in real life either. Northern Europe was not a desirable place to colonise initially, but it gradually became more important as the forests were cleared.

The Germans should not get off to a very quick start therefore, they should have the problem of chopping down all those forests, but they'd have plenty of room to expand into and it would pay off later once most of the grassland was uncovered.

MIDDLE EAST & ASIA

The most ancient civilisations began in Egypt, Babylon, Persia, India and China.

Egypt is still there, although it's shrunk somewhat. In game terms the whole of the North African coast (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya) could be considered to have evolved from the Egyptians.

Babylon eventually became modern day Iraq, and Persia became modern day Iran. In game terms all of the Middle Eastern countries (Iran, Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Arabia, Afghanistan etc.) could be considered to be descendants of the Babylonians and Persians. (I'm sure some might disagree, but let's not get into any deep arguments about this, it's just a game, remember?)

As for India, It didn't start out as such, but various early civilisations in the Indus Valley eventually evolved into the Indians (and also Pakistan and Bangladesh in game terms).

China probably best represents the "East-Asians" as a whole, so the Mongols, the Siberians, the Koreans, the Japanese, the Vietnamese etc. are probably best thought of as Chinese in game terms. I don't know much about the Far East, but I don't think it would be appropriate to include the Japanese, for the same reason that I don't think it's appropriate to include the English. Japan probably originated from China just as the English originated from Germany.

AMERICA

All of the existing countries in America (north and south) originally evolved from European colonies, primarily British (Germans/Celts), French, Spanish and Portuguese (Romans). Although not colonising America directly, a great many Irish (Celts) and Germans emigrated to America. So most of the people we now think of as Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians and so on, are actually Celts, Romans and Germans.

So what about true American empires? Well the North American Indians were just scattered tribes, they never really developed an empire as such, so it's unrealistic to include them in the game. But of course, there were the Aztec, Inca and Mayan empires. However, these started very late in the game (the Aztecs didn't turn up until the 12th century), were very small in world terms, and were quickly squashed by the invading Europeans.

In Civ3, the Aztecs would have an unfair advantage starting in America due to having no other competition there, due to it being a very rich region, and due to starting much earlier in history than they really did. By the time the Europeans turned up, an Aztec civ would probably have covered the continent with roads and be churning out cavalry, musketeers and cannons. America would not be the walkover it was in real life.

Even if they did have competition in the form of the Iroquois, it's just not realistic for America to become "civilised" so early in the game, not if a reasonably realistic historical development of the planet is desired, which is of course what I'm writing about.

For this reason I think it's best to fill America with barbarian tribes instead. This would make America a prime area for colonisation later in the game, with the barbarians providing token resistance.

A FEW NOTES ABOUT SEAS AND OCEANS

In order to make the colonisation of America a feature of the later game, it's probably necessary to design the ocean/sea areas in such a way as to prevent the Europeans from reaching America too early in the game.

Although the Vikings are known to have reached America quite early on in history, they didn't settle there so it probably wasn't practical to do so given the technology of the time. In Civ3 it is, so I think this should be prevented with ocean tiles. It was probably a very risky journey anyway, with very cold and stormy weather that far north, even if the water is technically quite shallow.

(By the same token, ocean tiles could be used to prevent players from easily rounding the notoriously treacherous Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America.)

Civ3 map designers seem to be developing the tendency of representing the shallower parts of the world's oceans as seas. I must admit that the idea of representing the Mid-Atlantic ridge with sea tiles is very appealing, but unfortunately it's not very realistic, for two reasons;

1. The shallower parts of the oceans as represented in Atlas maps, are not really very shallow at all. On the map I'm looking at, the contour line that shows the Mid-Atlantic ridge is 4000m deep! It may not be as deep as the rest of the ocean, but it's more than deep enough to qualify as an ocean in game terms. There are a few genuinely shallow bits, such as at the Azores and other islands, but most of it is deep enough to qualify as ocean, not sea.

2. The distinction between seas and oceans isn't really based on the depth of the water, it's based on how enclosed the water is, which affects how difficult it is to cross. Take a look at where real seas are marked on the map - the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, the North Sea, the Bering Sea, the China Seas, the Coral Sea, the Red Sea, the Arabian Sea, the Caribbean Sea. These are all enclosed areas.

On the open ocean the currents run deep and unrestricted over huge distances, which can result in gigantic waves, with no shelter from the wind. Seas, on the other hand, are protected from such currents by nearby land and islands. Even if parts of the North Atlantic seem shallow enough to qualify as sea, they have no protection from these large waves and currents.

So even if these supposedly shallow patches of sea in the middle of the world's oceans seem like a good idea, I don't believe they are at all realistic. Seas and oceans should be defined according to how difficult they are to cross, not on how shallow the water is (that's only important very close to land). Sea areas shouldn't allow Europeans to travel to and colonise the Americas too early in the game, in my opinion. This is crucial to a realistic historical development.

AFRICA

This is a problem in the game. I think Africa has much in common with America, in that it should be filled with barbarian tribes rather than major nations. However, Africa is easily accessible and could be quickly colonised by the Egyptians and possibly the Romans.

I think one of the problems in Civ3 is that Africa is too desirable an area in game terms. In real life it's very hot, much of the terrain is desert or jungle, it's full of wild animals, is rife with diseases, and is not generally a very good area for growing crops. In short, it's not an ideal place to develop a great empire. With Civ3 terrain though, it's much too hospitable.

I think one solution might be to make the terrain of Africa more undesirable. So for example, there should be very little grassland. There's a big difference between grassland that receives a lot of rain (as in Europe) and hot, dry grassland. Better to use plains I think. Likewise, a lot of the semi-arid plains might be better represented as desert. Throw in plenty of jungle and hills and you have an area that produces very little food. I think that lack of food is a very important consideration in order to make Africa unsuitable for great empire building.

For the same reason there should be lots of tundra underneath the vast forests of Siberia and northern Canada, those are very inhospitable places too. Believe it or not, the coldest part of Siberia is in the forests south of the tundra, further inland from the sea. The problem is that Civ3 only represents terrain, not climatic conditions, which are a big factor in real life.

AUSTRALIA

Similar to America, this should be populated by barbarian tribes only, and should be difficult to get to until later in the game. Although the connecting seas may be quite shallow, historically Australia wasn't colonised until much later, during the great age of colonisation. It shouldn't be very desirable in terms of terrain, it's more important for it's resources, but early empires shouldn't be aware of that.

Due to the abstractions of the Civ3 game design, connecting Australia with sea would most likely mean that it would quickly become part of the Indian or Chinese empires. I'm not sure how this could be prevented without inserting an unrealistically large area of ocean.

FINALLY

To sum up, I think a realistic historical game of Civ should begin with just eight nations - the Romans, Germans, Greeks, Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Indians and Chinese. These would gradually develop into the great nations that we know today, although their names, and hence their origins, would remain the same.

The culture feature would help these new nations to evolve, in much the same way as the Spanish (Romans) in the western US were absorbed into the US (German) culture and the Siberians (Chinese) into the Russian (German) culture. (I know it didn't happen exactly like that, but that would be Civ3's way of representing it.)

In the modern world (in game terms), the Celts still control Ireland, but have otherwise disappeared through cultural absorption. The Germans control Britain, north and east Europe, Russia, western Canada, the United States and Australia, while the Romans control south-west Europe, eastern Canada, Central and South America.

The Chinese and Indians both have decent sized, well-established empires, but have not sought world conquest, the Babylonians and Persians are not doing terribly well, and the Greeks and Egyptians have shrunk to tiny proportions.

The "winners" are probably Germany, having the most power and resources, while the Romans come in a close second, controlling a greater land area, but not so many resources. All the nations are pretty much at peace these days, except for the warlike Babylonians and Persians, who still can't seem to curb their bloodlust.

There are also many warlike tribes still active in Africa, which has never been fully conquered by the "civilised" nations, who still only have scattered colonies there.

I'd rate the current rankings as follows;

1. Germans
2. Romans
3. Chinese
4. Indians
5. Babylonians
6. Persians
7. Egyptians
8. Greeks

My suggestion about using only eight nations conveniently corresponds to the ideal number that the game was designed for. Although sixteen nations is possible (which many people like) it slows down the game significantly (which most people don't like). Given the way that real nations and empires have evolved over the millennia, I think these eight nations are the most realistic to start with for the most historically accurate game.

Comments and alternative ideas are welcome.

Paul

[Alexandre Madeira]

Interesting ideas, but there's a problem in my opinion that stops me from doing something like this: If we played as the Germans for instances to represent all nations of germanic origin, we would colonize Britain, North America and others, and have city names like Bremen, New Berlin, etc... ) This would only work if we as map maker of an Earth map could assign a location inside a 3 tiles square a city name. Example: Germans sent a settler to Britan near the London area, and build a city there, city is automatically named London (or gets London as the default name). This would be big work for the map maker, but I think it would be cool, since we would end up with cities with the correct name in their correct locations (or close). But unfortunately we cant do this

[Ozymandias]

I believe Paul's points are exceptionally well presented and accurate. As someone who's been developing games on and off for (*gasp*) nearly 30 years, the heart of the problem is the ancient (no offense, but I suspect that for many of you 30 years is indeed ancient) one of game vs. simulation -- how much historical accuracy are you willing to trade for other concerns, and vice-versa.

Of course, it's ridiculous, historically, to think of starting America in 4000 BC -- indeed, one of the many features I like about NOT using America is to show how historically UNLIKELY any particular set of circumstances are. Had the Spanish Armada not been storm swept, North America would almost certainly have been a Spanish, not English, colony -- "French & Spanish Wars", anyone? Likewise, had the Chinese not turned their backs on sea travel due to dynastic politics, there would have been a decent chance that whoever wound up on the eastern seaboard might have encountered Chinese on the West. And, as the Chinese did not possess the conquering fervor of the conquistadors, there might easily have been an Aztec "buffer" state between the two.

Now please do not misread this -- personally, I believe that democracy points towards the best in humankind and may indeed have been inevitable (although the Greeks losing at Thermopylae might have proven me wrong) -- it is America which depends, historically, upon winning its war of independence (hardly inevitable); the sinking of the armada; the victory of the Normans in 1066; the defeat at Tours of the Arabs in 732 ... I'm sure you all get my drift.

Personally, in an attempt to maximize my personal views of history and balance accuracy with gameplay, I'm working on a scenario ca. 900 CE/AD and adjusting the number of turns accordingly. Much technology had been lost world-wide, in large part due to an evident worldwide climactic disaster in the -- I believe 7th century, possibly 6th. This allows the following starting players / positions:

English (Kingdom of Wessex)
Vikings
French
Germans
Italians
Russians
Byzantines
Arabs
Indians
Chinese
Aztecs
Incas
& possibly for play balance -- Mississippi Valley mound builders ("Iroquois") and Khmer.

Sorry, but, as for America, best start a scenario around, oh, 1776 or so.

If anyone's still reading this, my personal preferences for a 4000 BCE/BC game with SOME historical verisimilitude and game-balance would be:

Egypt
Babylon
India (starting with its first city, Mohenjo-daru, in the Indus valley)
China
Bantu (beginning nearabouts Kenya and helping solve the empty-Africa problem)

Given event flags for scenarios (don't hold your breath) I'd add in other civs, computer played, about when they historically appeared.

Yours dreaming of a decent scenario editor,

Oz

PS Oh & thinking of the Chinese at sea, it's been extremely well argued that the seaworthiness of the "junk" derives from its internal compartmentalization -- in imitation of bamboo. Bamboo as a strategic resource, anyone?

-O.

[Paul Saunders]

Game vs. simulation, yes, playability versus realism, the fundamental problem in any game design, I understand this only too well.

Yes I do get your drift, human history could have turned out very differently. So much of today's world depends on critical turning points that could have gone either way.

Yes, I like your idea for a 900AD starting point, but I'm not sure about all technology being lost. I think the English should start with ship-building at the very least. After all, that's how they got to Britain in the first place!

Your suggestions for a 4000BC starting point are valid, being the very oldest empires, but one of the unrealisms of Civ is the the early turns of the game go very quickly. 1000 years can pass in the time it takes to build a couple of spearmen, whole empires can rise and fall in the time it takes to build a granary!

For this reason I don't think it's necessary to take the start date too literally. Any empire that originated in the first few thousand years (anything BC basically) is fair game I reckon.

Paul

[Paul Saunders]

[SIZE=1] This would be big work for the map maker, but I think it would be cool, since we would end up with cities with the correct name in their correct locations (or close). But unfortunately we cant do this

But we can name the cities we build so at least our own cities can have realistic names.

Paul

[KaiserIsak]

Only because they speak the same language does´nt mean they´re the same people.
This is where your logic stops.

[Paul Saunders]

This is true. I'm a Celt yet I speak English. Still, it does give a general indication about the movement and evolution of peoples.

Paul

[Oda Nobunaga]

While it's true that historically there were few, if any civilization in 4000 bc, an inherent weakness of setting the start point of a game with only these eight civilization is the fact that "seccesionist" civilizations will not appear. There was somewhat of an attempt at this in Civilization II, when empire split due to their capital falling, but otherwise, a feature allowing such switch is what prevent a realistic game starting in 4000 bc either way.

The best way to deal with it would be, as others mentioned, a somehwat more recent start to the game, though there are inherent problems to that too, such as the fact that advanced empires did exist at that point in time.

Another way to help would be to create a "slowdown" effect - for example, making the settler a wheeled unit, and potentialy creating an upgraded settler as we all know and love which would not have this disadvantage. This could then be used to "constrict" civilizations - for example, start the aztec and co all jumbled together around alaska, and force them to make their way down to hospitable lands, either through breaking through the rocky mountains (through having their workers clear the way, which, early on, as well know, is LONG), or walking all the way down to central mexico on the coast. This would prevent them from becoming too powerful early on due to ressources. The same could be done for the Iroquois - the entirety of North America except the east coast should require extreme development before it becomes actually useful, but be very useful in the late game, once developed.

Another improvement for the game would be to increase, if possible, the effect of corruption and waste, but conversely increase the effect of Courthouse, thus balancing out a bit large empires vs small but very developed ones. This would help such locations as Japan go around the lack of landspace problem. Lack of living space for the islands nations should not be a problem, or much of one, until well after good ships are available ; lack of strategic ressources should be, although the early key ressources should be available to mostly everyone. To that end, coastal terrains should have an higher yield in ressources, especially food and trade.

[Paul Saunders]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
While it's true that historically there were few, if any civilization in 4000 bc, an inherent weakness of setting the start point of a game with only these eight civilization is the fact that "seccesionist" civilizations will not appear.

True, but this is something that Civilization doesn't represent anyway. In game terms, the early empires developed into the later empires, and this is in effect what the player does when he manages an empire which spans 6,500 years. Few real life empires ever lasted that long.

There was somewhat of an attempt at this in Civilization II, when empire split due to their capital falling, but otherwise, a feature allowing such switch is what prevent a realistic game starting in 4000 bc either way.

Exactly, there's no way to get a truly realisitic game whatever you do, it just isn't designed that way. Personally I prefer to start with the oldest empires and simply assume that they evolve into modern empires, except that the names don't change.

My main goal here though, is to create a situation where the Americas are ripe for colonisation later in the game, which is something that normally never happens because the American civs over develop the continent by the time the Europeans get there.

Another way to help would be to create a "slowdown" effect - for example, making the settler a wheeled unit, and potentialy creating an upgraded settler as we all know and love which would not have this disadvantage. This could then be used to "constrict" civilizations - for example, start the aztec and co all jumbled together around alaska, and force them to make their way down to hospitable lands, either through breaking through the rocky mountains (through having their workers clear the way, which, early on, as well know, is LONG), or walking all the way down to central mexico on the coast.

The problem is that they wouldn't do that, they'd simply build loads of cities in Alaska. The game isn't designed for the AI civs to develop in sensible ways, they just build wherever they are.

This would prevent them from becoming too powerful early on due to ressources. The same could be done for the Iroquois - the entirety of North America except the east coast should require extreme development before it becomes actually useful, but be very useful in the late game, once developed.

I'm not happy with any civ starting in America. However realistic it might be in real life, it isn't in the game, they just don't develop realistically. In game terms the civs in America were little more than barbarians by the time the Europeans got there, and they walked right over them. Including any Americans in the game causes too much development of the continent. The only way to get a reasonably realistic late game "colonisation of the New World" is to leave it empty IMO.

Ultimately it's just a game and people can tailor it to suit their own preferences. These are my preferences that's all.

Another improvement for the game would be to increase, if possible, the effect of corruption and waste, but conversely increase the effect of Courthouse, thus balancing out a bit large empires vs small but very developed ones. This would help such locations as Japan go around the lack of landspace problem. Lack of living space for the islands nations should not be a problem, or much of one, until well after good ships are available ; lack of strategic ressources should be, although the early key ressources should be available to mostly everyone. To that end, coastal terrains should have an higher yield in ressources, especially food and trade.

Yeah, that makes sense. The scale of the game is wrong, in reality cities require far less land to support them than they do in the game.

Paul

[Oda Nobunaga]

Originally posted by Paul Saunders


True, but this is something that Civilization doesn't represent anyway. In game terms, the early empires developed into the later empires, and this is in effect what the player does when he manages an empire which spans 6,500 years. Few real life empires ever lasted that long.


Exactly, there's no way to get a truly realisitic game whatever you do, it just isn't designed that way. Personally I prefer to start with the oldest empires and simply assume that they evolve into modern empires, except that the names don't change.

My main goal here though, is to create a situation where the Americas are ripe for colonisation later in the game, which is something that normally never happens because the American civs over develop the continent by the time the Europeans get there.

See my solution below : if you want to play an american civ it's an hard challenge, if you don't want to, then who cares where the aztec and co wind up building up? They'll have a weak empire unable to stand up to much if they start up in Alaska.

The problem is that they wouldn't do that, they'd simply build loads of cities in Alaska. The game isn't designed for the AI civs to develop in sensible ways, they just build wherever they are.

And if wherever they are is a pathetic place, then they will have an extremly stunted growth, leaving SOME measure of organized opposition in America (above barbarians) while not making it a fully developed continent.

I'm not happy with any civ starting in America. However realistic it might be in real life, it isn't in the game, they just don't develop realistically.

None of the civs in the game develops realistically.

In game terms the civs in America were little more than barbarians by the time the Europeans got there, and they walked right over them.

WAIT A MINUTE. That's complete BS. Certainly, they were less advanced than europeans in certain domains, but in others they were far ahead. One problem is that the first contact between America and Europe tends to happen FAR too late in the game, especially on the larger maps, unless you rush things. Faster ships are a must.

Including any Americans in the game causes too much development of the continent. The only way to get a reasonably realistic late game "colonisation of the New World" is to leave it empty IMO.

Civ isn't really a what-happened game, it's a what-might-have happened - for example, if the Aztecs had been stronger by the time the Spaniards arrived, what would have happened? What if the Chinesse had

Ultimately it's just a game and people can tailor it to suit their own preferences. These are my preferences that's all.

Yeah, that makes sense. The scale of the game is wrong, in reality cities require far less land to support them than they do in the game.

Paul

Lots of things in the game are wrong. For example, how much time it take to step out of despotism combined with the production penalties. As it is, any easy-to-obtain grassland terrain produce as much food as any of the legendary floodplain terrains of the middle east and egypt until you grow out of despotism...which is usually rather late, unless you make a dash to republic or monarchy. And even then, the early research rate really doesn't help there.

I've been putting together a list of changes to balance out and increase the realism of the game, but of course it's taking a while.

But for a quick rundown of what things would be like.

Max sized map.

Lots of change to governments, city improvements, and to help smaller empires.

Terrain changes :
Forest reduced from 1/2/0 to 1/1/0, take more time to clear (but that, in turn, make them produce more shield once cleared I believe).
Coast produce more food.
Tundra takes more time to alter.

Units change :
Settlers cost more, have the "Wheeled" trait, making jungles and mountains in more of the source of trouble for settlers they really were.

Civilization :

Europe :
Greeks (starts around Athen)
Roman (starts around Rome, obviously)
Celts (No offense, but I'd probably use the English for this, even though they are actually closer to the Germans - starts in north-west Germany)
Germanic Tribes (Germans, or Russians - starts in Poland/Russia)

Middle East :
As you said, the key one early on.
Egypt, Babylon and Persia, all starting where they belong.

Asia : That's where we *REALLY* disagree.
I would have, along with the small-empires boosting ideas mentioned :
Japan (Actually involves Korea too) Basically, the "rebelious" kids of China. Starts obviously around Kyoto's current location. Japanesse territory should be able to sustain a small but powerful empire.
China. A big d'uh. We know where they belong. HOWEVER I would switch their advantage to scientific/industrious back as the manual had it.
India - The valley of Indus civilizations. Pretty obvious.
And I'd use another civilization for :
Mongolia (representing the whole altaic tribes). They were *MUCH* more than the barbarian raiders unit, and they would provide somewhat of an actual challenge to China, unlike a swarm of barbarian. In addition, having a tribe further inland up north would actually makes for interesting interaction with the Germanic tribes later in the game.

America : change the terrain to make it require EXTENSIVE work to produce anything useful. Lots of forest/jungles, meaning each cities take lot of time to develop efficiently. Adding in natural barriers were justifiable to keep settlers from wandering.

Mayans : They developed earlier than the aztecs (though still late by Civ III terms), and they were a sizeable power as well. Using the Aztec civilization, of course.

Probably an Incan civilization as well, though starting further south. than they actually did, to represent the south american indian.

Of course, all of this require extensive work, but that's my idea on it.

[AmbientOyster]

Wrong game

As much as I would like Civ to be more historical, the game engine simply is not made for that kind of game. If you want that you should check out Europa Universalis and the sequel which is just about to get released.
http://www.europa-universalis.com/overview.asp

[ScottVib]

Ambient, quick correction... the sequel has been released for almost a month now... and it has already been patched once with another being tested currently.

[joebasstard]

independent cities etc.

Originally posted by Ozymandias
I believe Paul's points are exceptionally well presented and accurate. As someone who's been developing games on and off for (*gasp*) nearly 30 years, the heart of the problem is the ancient (no offense, but I suspect that for many of you 30 years ...

-O.

All very good points... Consider this: what if you had no control of your settlers? I'm not a modmaker, so I don't know about the overall feasibility. So when a settler is created, it is automated. More than that, when it decides to build a city, the city doesn't belong to you automatically. This reflects how cities usually sprang up in ancient times. A leader didn't usually send a bunch of settlers to a location to "build a city" though it did happen (see egypt). Anyway, proximity to cities you AND cultural influence determines whether these new "independent cities" become part of your 'nation'. Large areas of the globe would remain independent cities throught the ancient ages and later (historically correct). Another feature could be that groups of independent cities with a great amount of cultural similarity AND nearness to one another could form new nations (historically correct). A large part of empire building would be acquisition of existing NEUTRAL cities either through conquest, bribery, diplomacy, etc. There could even be cities 'affiliated' to or 'protected by' your empire which give you added trade and resources but don't wish to fully join your nation (due to cultural difference, distance, etc.) until the advent of something akin to Nationalism in which confederated empires become Federated nations. After that, your settlers are STILL automated but the cities they buid automatically become part of your nation. Call me crazy, I think it would make the game both more realistic AND more interesting.

[Shadowstrike]

What would be really great in Civ, and would give the "sweep of time" feeling, would be to only have a few civs initially, then, have more pop up sfrom time to time, some randomly, in teh wilderness, toehrs as schismists in the middle of an empire. Finally, make large empires difficult to adminster (as in another solution then the high corruption one). These civs should be created in a logical progression.

i.e. Etruscans -> Romans -> Byzantines -> Venitians -> Italians

Or something like that. The possibilities in such an undertaking would be vast. Of course it would also need potentially thousands of civs, which would severle tax computing power, but it would be breathtaking to play.

[squeeze truck]

I like the wheeled settler idea to slow down expansion.
I have some of my own as well:

- Reduce the default max size of beginning cities to 2, making them unable to produce settlers. (or 3, and make settlers cost 3 pop each.) Cities on rivers would naturally be exempt. This means the wheeled settlers could only be produced by centers of high population. I think this is very much more realistic. Building an aqueduct will of course remove this limitation.

- Make every military unit cost at least 1 pop.
This seems reasonable to me. I don't see where all the free people would be coming from. To keep it fair, they can also rejoin cities.

- Disallow building of workers until later in the game. Perhaps with pottery, or a bit later.

- Strengthen barbarians. Perhaps default should be spearman, swordsman, or something similar. "Massive barbarian uprisings" should be a lot scarier than they currenltly are.


BTW, has anyone played Marla's world map and seen how many fetching barbarians there are in Australia by the time you get there? Hundreds. I think if you make the settlers wheeled, and put a mountain on the Sinai peninsula, Africa could be full of barbarians by the time other civs reach it (assuming no Egyptians or Zulus.)