Civ Selection Criteria for an 8th civ, which may never be designed

I fully agree on every word of your text, it is impossible to be able to agree if you decide to create a new civilization. So the decision of the choice of civilization would fall in my opinion to the head / supreme owner of the game, but if he doesn't feel like it, I would also agree to a vote the most voted wins is clear. For us gamers, most of the civilizations mentioned in your text would do just fine. Clearly a survey can also be chosen in an unmentioned civ. Just to see this post written has excited me and made me goosebumps. Force say your AOEO players, good choice and good ideas to everyone

 

• Gauls - Bit too similar to Celts
• Germanic Tribes - bit too indistinct
• Thracians - not well known, and bit indistinct maybe?
• Carthage - recognisable name, might be too similar in visual/unit styles to existing civs? As Carthage started as a Phoenician settlement it could be include Phoenician elements as well perhaps to make it more unique.
• Phoenicians - somewhat recognisable name, might be too similar in visual/unit style to existing civs? Could combined with Cartage perhaps (ie Carthage is its early days as Phoenician settlement)
• Nubians - Somewhat recognisable name, does have an ingame presence already but not so much that it needs to disrupt making this a full civ. Definitely more distinct in visuals/styles than existing civs. Close in location and time, a strong choice
• Scythians - somewhat recognisable name, fairly difference visuals/style than existing civs, has good location, time and interaction with some of the other civs, a solid choice. Also extends map further east which would make it easier for further civs to continue in that direction.
• Huns - recognisable name, fairly difference visuals/style than existing civs, has good location, time and interaction with some of the other civs, a solid choice.
• India - 'Indus Valley Civilisation' - very recognisable name, but not as well detailed for building a game civ on. Bit further east so doesn't have great location, interactions with existing civs, though there was some trade apparently.
• Mongols - great name recognition, distinct styles and gameplay. Timeline is a bit off.
• Xiongnu - not as well known, could be interesting, give bit of the style of mongols but with better time fit. Bit far east though
• China - very recognisable name, distinct styles, etc. Bit further east than game might want to go yet, but otherwise a great choice.
• Japanese - very recognisable name, distinct styles, etc. Bit further east than game might want to go yet, but otherwise a great choice.
• Olmec - Not well known, distinct styles. A decent choice if including civs from the Americas, though I might consider Aztec, Inca, etc with more name recognition.
• Mayans - Well known name, distinct styles. A good choice if including civs from the Americas.

Exclusions:
Gauls, Germanic, Thracians - Not distinct enough from existing civs
China, Japanese, India - Too far east. But if a connected civ was created then maybe they could come further in the future.
Olmen, Mayans - Too far across ocean. But maybe could just do it anyways at some point in the future, as it opens up several civs in the americas region.


Good choices:

• Phoenicians, Carthage - safe choices, strong connections to existing civs but could work nicely. I'd suggest considering combining the two if you could, maybe like how Romans have hired Gaul units.

• Nubians - Distinct and connects to the map, a solid choice.

• Scythians,Huns (Mongols, Xiongnu) - are portrayed as a nomadic, horse culture - I know there were in practice many differences, but if all 4 civs created they could be fairly similar. Therefore some thought should go into if just one should enter the game to represent that style in visuals and gameplay. Scythians would be the ones closest to the existing civs. As bonus, could open up map to going further east, giving more options in the future. If there many ideas for this type of civ, then bringing in 2 of them over time could be left open.

 

This is an interesting thread, I’m very excited to see what discussions turn up. I’m a tad biased myself, I’d very much like to see a Civ that wasn’t based around the Mediterranean region. I know the Norse sort of aren’t, but they’re still European, so I’m counting them. I’ll add a few thoughts, but am not well versed enough in either History or Game Design to offer much.

1. Era: I would argue that this is semi-irrelevant, due to our Nordic friends. Obviously you don’t want guys bringing Assault Rifles to our proverbial knife-fights, but era should not be too strong a consideration, in my humble opinion. I would not rule any of those Civs out based on this criteria.

2. Location:
The closest listed Civs to our current Civs are probably Phonecia, Carthage, Scythia and Nubia. Wasn’t Assyria being floated around back in the day too? Thrace, Gaul and the Germanics were close, but I’m ruling them out right off the bat for other reasons. This criteria is the biggest strike against any Eastern or Mesoamerican Civ, in my opinion.

3. Availability:
This is one of the main reasons I rule out Thrace. They’re already represented in Greece, with appearances in the Greecian campaign, as well as the Hypaspist unit. This is also an issue for Carthage. Carthage is more or less represented in the Legion of Carthage Alliance. Nubia is present in the Egyptian campaign, but is given enough of its own identity that I don’t think this rules them out. Scythians are already seen in Persian advisor units, for what that’s worth.

4. Name recognition and fantasy:
This one’s easy. All three of the East Asian Civs, China, India and Japan are highly requested, and it’s not hard to imagine a play style for them. We know India was in at least preliminary development before Microsoft pulled the plug. Carthage benefits from this as well, Hannibal being one of the most well known generals in human history. This is also why I dropped the Germanic Tribes. Even saying their name is awkward, and generally, when people think of them, they think of something of a cross between the Celts and the Norse.

5. Distinct Visuals:
The best Civs here are the Mesoamerican ones and the East Asian ones. It would be a challenge to have the Gauls differ from the Celts, or Scythia from Persia, in a way that felt organic. I imagine this is part of why Rome has all those wooden stakes; it’s meant to set it apart visually from Greece. China and Japan share similar architectural stylings, so that could be problematic, but they both have extremely unique art styles that differ dramatically from anything already in the game. So does India and Maya.

6. Playstyle and Design:
This ones a tad hard to discuss without being overly wordy. I believe this is the biggest strike against India and Carthage/Phoenicia. Any Indian Civ would naturally gravitate towards Elephants as a theme, and that would seriously step on Egypt’s toes as Elephants more or less define their play style in PvE. Carthage/Phoenicia would play similar to Rome I suspect, with Carthage also running into the Elephant problem. I believe China takes this category. China has the Great Wall and the largest population on the planet. I think this naturally builds a play style that depends on heavy defenses to support aggressive unit spam. They also were the first Civ to develop gunpowder, plus they had the Cho-Ko repeating Crossbow. A mounted faction like Scythia or the Huns runs the risk of stepping on Babylon’s toes but, handled well, could also be really cool and unique.

I will be honest, I am biased towards Asia or Mesoamerica, and that likely colored my judgement. I did try to look at things impartially, and am curious to see what conclusions others come to.

 

All I want to see after Rome is the Neanderthals in an April's Fool event. Best Cavalry ever!

 

You flatter me with your kind words. I simply enjoy theorycrafting more than is remotely healthy is all. I play Magic, and enjoy the deck building process almost more than the game itself. Daydreaming about potential Civs is what part of what hooked me on this game in the first place.

Regarding the Norse, I want to make clear that I recognize era need play some part in Civ consideration. My point was merely that, as far as AoEO is concerned, they are the Norse, regardless of any other inspirations. The Norse as we know them are quite a bit removed from the other five Civs; I recall their addition causing a fair bit of ruffled feathers back in the day. As such, I feel Era should be a somewhat malleable consideration, and it would not in my estimation rule out any of the Civs on the list. Obviously there has to be some consideration, a U.S.A Civ would be patently ridiculous, but I don’t think a Mayan or Japanese Civ is too much of a stretch.

 

I really like the idea of Carthage as an 8th civ.

Honestly, I should just be happy we are getting the Romans. But we always got to have more..

Addressing #6, Carthage has the potential to add a lot to the game:

• Economic emphasis - Carthage was an economic powerhouse of its time.
• Mercs -I know the Romans will have Auxiliaries, but Carthage was very merc-heavy
• Religion - Carthage was known in its time for being very religious, maybe even hyper-religious
• Naval strength - Carthage was very heavily naval to protect its trade network
• Famous leaders - Hannibal is obviously the big one, but there are others with a bit of research
• Strong Agriculture - The Romans were very interested in Carthage's agriculture
• Strong Fortifications

So.. how to put this into a design?

Dye Manufactorum - Either a building or an upgrade that makes trade more profitable. Carthage was big into purple dye.
Dock - Cothon? Carthage was known for its specialized and unique docks and harbors. But how to implement that? Ships can garrison inside the dock for repair? Dock is larger and tougher?
Temple - Increase villager train time for bonuses?


Basic ideas for a design, not complete or anything:

Aging up mechanic - Carthage ages up w/ trade profit. Market and caravans are Age 1. After trading for X amount of gold, can age up. Ages up at the Market instead of the Town Center. Can dump gold in out of the stockpile as a substitute for trade profit.

i.e. Trade for 100 gold and then age up for 200 food at the Market, alternatively spent 100 gold as a substitute and then 200 food to age up

Town Center

• Villager - more expensive to train and takes longer, Carthage is dependent on trade for power

Market (Agora)

• Caravan
  • Significantly cheaper and higher yield than other civilizations
• Ability to choose what resource you get with trade

Farm

• Farm can be upgraded (individually) with wood for higher output

Barracks-Three recruitment structures, Iberian (recruited in Spain), African (recruited from around Carthage), Urban (recruited in Carthage)

• Iberian Barracks
  • Falcata - Sword equipped anti-infantry infantry
  • Angon - Anti-Cav Infantry
• African Barracks
  • Numidian Skirmisher - Light, fast, short ranged
    
  • Libyan Chariot - Anti-Infantry Melee Cavalry, charges in for damage bonus
  • Libyan Hoplite - Cheap, Accessible spear unit
• Urban Barracks
  • Sacred Band - Potent Hoplite, Age 4

Fortress

• Elephant - Weaker and cheaper than Egypt, but stronger than horse units

Docks - The dock should do something cool

• Civilian
  • Fishing boat
  • Merchant Transport
    • Upgradable into naval scout ship (hanno's expedition) - fast with great vision, can build coastal outposts
    • Can build docks
• Military
  • Naval Supremacy ship-probably a ram ship
  • All rounder ship-Maybe upgradable on the ship itself, Trireme -> Quadrireme -> Quinquereme?
  • Siege ship
  • Maybe a fourth ship, to due to naval emphasis.
    • Trains units?
    • Buffs other ships?
    • Heals nearby land units?

What do you think?

 

I’m not Carthage’s biggest fan, but I admit there are some intriguing ideas here. The Naval emphasis is really cool and appropriate, but as the devs mentioned in one of the Roman blogs, naval is a tricky part of Civ design. A Civ strong on the water would need weaknesses elsewhere to balance it out, so what happens to that Civ on a landlocked map?

An improved Dock could be really cool. What if you could upgrade them individually to function as mini forts to defend territory and help ensure naval supremacy?

I love the trade design and the requisite for aging up. Super original, I would love to see it in game someday.

Having units from three regions could potentially result in a scattershot art-style. What are your thoughts here?

I feel very strongly that elephants are dangerous territory for future Civs. They are essentially Egypt’s calling card, it would require delicate design work to not hedge in on that territory.

 

@Andy

1.) Carthage or Phoenician, either works.

2.) Maybe elephants would overlap with Egypt too much. Nothing I can do about that.

3.) The naval strengths (great ships) would be balanced out by its naval weaknesses (must defend trade network). Navy should be largely divorced from land balance in my opinion, since it is so often divorced from gameplay, as you mention. So the docks are unique, in addition to the Market and the Farm.

4.) I'm a Cartho-phile for sure, no if's and's or but's about that.

But for other civs, that's tough.

If we are going to play the 'superficial' card, even with Rome, there are 0:

• 'Black' Civilizations
• 'Arab' Civilizations (Egypt is borderline IMO, there is a lot of debate on how 'Arab' ancient Egypt was)
• 'Indian' Civilizations
• 'Asian' Civilizations
• 'Native American' Civilizations (I agree they are too far away for the game's scope)

And geographically, you can:

• Go west (Iberia, Morocco) - Not enough material, overlap with Rome
• Go South (Sahara) - Due to the fact it's a desert, material is limited
• Go North (not Really) - Norse are about as north as you get
• Go East (Lots of options!)
  • India
  • Russia
  • Afghanistan / Area
  • China (might be too far)

So with that in mind:

• Nubia - Too much overlap with Egypt
• Aksum (Ancient Ethiopa) - That might work
  • Unique Buildings: Stele, Podia
  • Wonder - Queen of Sheba's Palace
• Himyar (Ancient Yemen) - Might not be enough material
• Garamantes (Sahara) -Might not be enough material
• Numidia - Might not be enough material
• Iceni (Ancient Britain) - Overlap with Celts
• Bactria (Hellenistic Pakistan-sort of) - Potential overlap with greeks, maybe ok though
• Kushan (Ancient Afghanistan-ish) - Largely nomadic, so material may be limited. Unless you make the Empire Nomadic?
• Gupta (Ancient India-partially) - I like this one
  • Not recognizable in the west, but recognizable elsewhere
  • Heavy Cavalry
  • Heavy Cavalry Archers
  • Elephants (I know, I know)
  • Light Infantry
  • Wonder: Mahabodhi Temple
• Khazars - Might be too late
• Novgorod - Might be too late
• Kievan Rus - Might be too late

 

I guess everyone knows I favour the Punic wars

 

My idea for Huns (could be also for Scythians, but Huns would be more unique):

1. Visuals:
- I just put here the shot from Age of Empires World Domination

- Units having Asian look which would very unique for the civ among others without putting civ from China.

2. Mechanics (mostly around their nomadic nature):
- They don't have houses. All buildings provide some housing space instead.
- Most buildings would be able to pack themselves and move to another location where they could unpack.
- Special building: Kurhan, which creates shaman units and gives buff to selected building around (may be switched). Cannot be built to close to another Kurhan.
- Focus on archers and cavalry. Week infantry.

 

A thread about civs and I'm not mentioned? I need to get back into civ crafting.

Perhaps a bit on who I am:

I am DynasticPlanet. Back in the day when this game was p2w, I was a civ designing fiend with ideas so fleshed out.

Nowadays? I still dabble but I'm a bit more restrained. I guess time washes things away. No matter. I'll get back on topic.

Some of the criteria for buildings can be a bit... constraining. Let me put it like this:

Lets say you have a nomadic civ... actually it doesn't even need to be a nomadic civ, that can uproot a bunch of their buildings and can move them. Think Warcraft 3 night elves back when Warcraft 3 was a game you could actually play.

This could effect a lot of buildings, but does this mean those buildings are 'improved'? Because you can move military training facilities, towers and storehouses doesn't mean they're 'improved'; they act fully normal when not moving.

I do want to bring up a thing that should be avoided:

A civ who ages up in any way based on walls or other buildings that we are told not to build for side objectives. This should go without saying but if your aging up depends on a building that can fail a sidequest such as towers or walls, then you won't enjoy using that civ in quests.

 

My point is, we could never have "Build no houses" as a sidequest or the Celts are instantly game over. The Celts dont age up at the houses, they just need a certain number.

Also I will reiterate the criteria as an improved building is bizarre. Egypt has improved armory because... they get a combined armor tech? So a civ couldn't have a combined attack tech because that'd squeeze Egypt out of its slot? That's not an improved armory, that's just a combined tech and means you need 1 less armory in your quests. It's like calling the Egyptian Barracks improved because it also has a Ranged Unit.

A better example: Rome has the combined Market Trade Penalty tech of Abacus but isn't labeled improved.

 

Ah, I remember you Dynastic. Always looked forward to your posts.