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

[Andy P XIII]

Recently I started a discussion on the discord about civ selection criteria for an 8th civ.

No matter what civ we were to choose, with so many good choices, everyone would have a different first choice, and so most players would be partially disappointed in the 8th civ. So our being able to candidly and transparently explain our selection criteria would likely go a good distance to help those players feel like we are still on their side. At least we feel like we've had good success with using the blog to explain our Roman design decisions. Even if players do not agree with some of those choices, for the most part, our explanations of how we arrived at them seem to temper everyone.

Again, I am not seeking a consensus of what civ we should choose. It would be impossible to reach a complete agreement, and a discussion of players arguing for their favorite pet civ ends up being like 15 different arguments about 15 different civs shuffled together.

Rather, I want a consensus of some of our outspoken members about what factors we should consider to rule out all but one civ. We have a list of now 15 different civs. So if we were to announce development of an 8th civ (which may never happen), 14 out of 15 of you would be disappointed. It is that moment that I want to brace us for. I want to be able to say at that moment to all 14 of those people that we used criteria that made sense and did our best to not be arbitrary. And, honestly, I think the exercise of coming up with those civ selection factors would help the group rule out a lot of those civs on their own so we can head off a ton of misplaced tears way beforehand.

Choosing a civ is a group decision, and much easier if everyone who enters the room already agrees that their favorite civ isn't going to be picked. And then we discuss the criteria to pick civs and see where we end up. Like the Romans are not my next favorite civ. The Carthaginians are. So choosing a civ based on my own subjective popularity, I would have chosen the carthaginians. But choosing a civ based on a bunch of factors, many of which we mentioned above, I fully agree that the romans are the only choice for 7. and, yeah, to be clear, I am not saying we are making an 8th civ, let alone it would (or should) be some kind of popular election

After our discussion, I took the civ selection criteria for an 8th civ that we discussed and made a list. Let me know if anyone sees something that doesnt belong or if I missed something.


1. Era: How much does the civ overlap in the timelines of the existing civs?

2. Location: Is the civ generally located near our existing civs without overlapping too much on their territory? Did the civ interact with existing civs in significant ways?

3. Availability: Historically, would the civ step on the toes of other civs? Is the civ referenced anywhere in the game or other official materials? Is the civ already in the game in some form, such as an alliance, smaller faction, or influence on an existing civ’s Units, Buildings, Techs, and themes?

4. Name recognition and fantasy: Does the civ have a well-known name that generates excitement? Does the civ have well-known branding of art, architecture, and Units?

5. Distinct Visuals: Would the civ be visually unique in its art, architecture and Units and otherwise lend itself to readability by players?

6. Playstyle and Design: Would the civ provide us with an opportunity to introduce enjoyable and fitting new ideas, Units, Buildings, and Techs into the game? Would the civ fit into the game with regards to playstyle, design, and strategy without stepping on the toes of other civs?

7. Previous Consideration: Did the original Developers consider designing the civ?

8. Expert Recommendations: Have the original Developers given any input about whether or not to design the civ?

9. Practicality: Is there some reason the civ would be particularly easier or more difficult to develop?

10. Opinions of Volunteers: Are our developers particularly excited or not excited about the civ?

I hesitate to run the list of civs through these factors publicly, since invariably people will take whatever I say as some kind of statement. But I am sure players will try to connect the dots on their own. That's healthy and natural. I'd much rather we let players play around in the sandbox themselves so they can weigh these factors themselves so that they can begin to get used to the results. I'd caution those people to keep in mind the point is not to take your favorite pet civ and see if you can apply the factors to that civ and then claim they should be 8th. that's backwards. I would suggest you apply these factors to the entire collection of possible civs and see which ones fit the least. slowly reduce that list until there's only a couple contenders. in an ideal world, there would be just one obvious choice. spoiler alert: we do not live in an ideal world. but there are some civs that fit less into these criteria than some others. it would be a healthy exercise to get used to trimming the list

Here is the list of 15 civs the group came up with, by the way. that a civ is not on this list is not a statement that it does not belong on the list. who knows what civs we'd consider if we ever got serious. Again, LOUD and CLEAR: god only knows if we ever try to make an 8th civ. We are taking it one civ at a time with giant vacations baked in.

Gauls
Germanic Tribes
Thracians
Carthaginians
Phoenicians
Nubians
Scythians
Huns
Indians
Mongols
Xiongnu
Chinese
Japanese
Olmec
Mayans

Feel free to leave your comments. But, again, the best comments compare potential civs against each other rather than just apply the factors to one pet civ and argue that's the answer.

EDIT: There was a call for an 11th factor, which was for us to create a long-term plan of multiple civs to design in some strategic order. In full transparency, the reality of that kind of luxury of a long-term plan is so distant from the present devs' minds that we shudder to discuss something like it for fear of cursing ourselves or pressuring our friends. Besides, I am not sure there is any benefit to it. We chose the 7th civ in a vacuum and can similarly choose the 8th civ on its own, too. If we were to ever get to 9, we can then decide what direction to go based on the context of that moment in time.

 

[RacketyPurse]

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

 

[Aryzel]

• 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.

 

[Andy P XIII]

Just to be clear: I would almost certainly never want to see a civ chosen by a popular vote/poll/survey. I think a small group of intelligent fans of the game could push every possible civ through these factors and come out with a better answer without the risk of the internet corrupting yet another public vote.

Besides, a poll would essentially toss out all of these factors and leave us exposed to the wolves.

 

[Fraxure022]

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.

 

[Andy P XIII]

Fraxure's post is why I started this thread. Well done! More please! Aryzel's is great, too! It is impossible to choose a civ without ruling out all the others, so comparison is key.

 

[Andy P XIII]

Fraxure, you are obviously very well read in the lore of AoEO, and there were a couple things you mentioned that deserve a more direct response.

1. Era: I would argue that this is semi-irrelevant, due to our Nordic friends.

Exactly who the Norse represent is a common point of debate. On the one hand, their connections to Vikings are undeniable -- the Berserkers, the Longships, the Longhouses, their name, and so much else. And, certainly, if we stop there, the anachromism of the civ is striking. As we all know, the Vikings did not come of age until the 8th Century CE -- about a full 1000 years after the other civs.

However, a more probing review of the civ reveals some cracks in that analysis, too. First, the Vikings were from Scandanavia, and our Norse seem to instead occupy northern mainland Europe near modern day Denmark and Germany. Perhaps most striking is some of the marketing materials that came with the Norse. Here is one in particular that can still be found on the wiki and at archive.org:

"Behold the mighty Norse! Hailing from Northern Europe, the Norse were a strong people that dared to challenge the Roman Empire.Command the extremely aggressive Norse and use their unique ability to build production facilities with their infantry! Wield the powerful Berserker to decimate your enemies’ front lines, or use the ancient Seer to summon a raven that can scout the map. There are endless creative strategy options at your disposal. Join the fight and rule the world with the Norse!"

https://web.archive.org/web/20130120102800/http://ageofempiresonline.com/en/civilizations

Affirmatively, neither the Vikings nor anyone in Scandanavia ever dared to challenge the Vikings. Rather, a far more likely candidate to fit that description would be the so-called Germanic Tribes who occupied the lands north of the Danube, whom the Romans and Greeks distinguished from the Celts.

It seems almost like the Devs, who were under a ton of pressure to perform in late 2012, played really loose and essentially melted the branding of the Vikings and the history of the Germanic Tribes. They called them "the Norse" because it is much, much catchier, sounds like Vikings, which are really cool, and the game dramatically needed new players to get excited and spend money. Vikings are cool.

I took this issue back to one of the original devs -- the guy who designed all of GPG's civs. He confirmed that the Norse were inspired by the Vikings, leaned heavily on them, but were also "like a cross between Germanic and Viking."

Exactly how we go from here is open to debate, but I would suggest that a civ's Era can be a bit flexible but ultimately still needs to connect in some concrete way to the civilizations of classical Antiquity.

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?

This is another sign you are no slouch. We know that after GPG took over by early 2011, they began development of the Phoenicians before abandoning them. Says our pal: "their history is so scarce and boring. it was a real pain trying to make them work as a civ i ended up using a lot of their gimmicks for babylonians who we decided on doing later"

As far as Assyrians, I cannot confirm it, but I have a strong sense that they were on Robot's list before GPG took over. For instance, the Assyrians are mentioned by name in the Cyprus region description. I recall they may also have been mentioned in the Empire Handbook, but am not certain and cannot find a copy.

Anyway, great post!

 

[Kulcsos12]

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

 

[Fraxure022]

Fraxure, you are obviously very well read in the lore of AoEO, and there were a couple things you mentioned that deserve a more direct response.

Exactly who the Norse represent is a common point of debate. On the one hand, their connections to Vikings are undeniable -- the Berserkers, the Longships, the Longhouses, their name, and so much else. And, certainly, if we stop there, the anachromism of the civ is striking. As we all know, the Vikings did not come of age until the 8th Century CE -- about a full 1000 years after the other civs.

However, a more probing review of the civ reveals some cracks in that analysis, too. First, the Vikings were from Scandanavia, and our Norse seem to instead occupy northern mainland Europe near modern day Denmark and Germany. Perhaps most striking is some of the marketing materials that came with the Norse. Here is one in particular that can still be found on the wiki and at archive.org:

"Behold the mighty Norse! Hailing from Northern Europe, the Norse were a strong people that dared to challenge the Roman Empire.Command the extremely aggressive Norse and use their unique ability to build production facilities with their infantry! Wield the powerful Berserker to decimate your enemies’ front lines, or use the ancient Seer to summon a raven that can scout the map. There are endless creative strategy options at your disposal. Join the fight and rule the world with the Norse!"

https://web.archive.org/web/20130120102800/http://ageofempiresonline.com/en/civilizations

Affirmatively, neither the Vikings nor anyone in Scandanavia ever dared to challenge the Vikings. Rather, a far more likely candidate to fit that description would be the so-called Germanic Tribes who occupied the lands north of the Danube, whom the Romans and Greeks distinguished from the Celts.

It seems almost like the Devs, who were under a ton of pressure to perform in late 2012, played really loose and essentially melted the branding of the Vikings and the history of the Germanic Tribes. They called them "the Norse" because it is much, much catchier, sounds like Vikings, which are really cool, and the game dramatically needed new players to get excited and spend money. Vikings are cool.

I took this issue back to one of the original devs -- the guy who designed all of GPG's civs. He confirmed that the Norse were inspired by the Vikings, leaned heavily on them, but were also "like a cross between Germanic and Viking."

Exactly how we go from here is open to debate, but I would suggest that a civ's Era can be a bit flexible but ultimately still needs to connect in some concrete way to the civilizations of classical Antiquity.

This is another sign you are no slouch. We know that after GPG took over by early 2011, they began development of the Phoenicians before abandoning them. Says our pal: "their history is so scarce and boring. it was a real pain trying to make them work as a civ i ended up using a lot of their gimmicks for babylonians who we decided on doing later"

As far as Assyrians, I cannot confirm it, but I have a strong sense that they were on Robot's list before GPG took over. For instance, the Assyrians are mentioned by name in the Cyprus region description. I recall they may also have been mentioned in the Empire Handbook, but am not certain and cannot find a copy.

Anyway, great post!

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.

 

[BamBam]

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?

 

[Fraxure022]

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 P XIII]

@BamBam, there are some good ideas in there for sure, and Carthage has always been on my short list of favorite potential civs. A few thoughts.
1. There could be some confusion with the name of the civ since we have the League of Carthage Alliance. Since Carthage was a Phoenician colony and remained loyal to them for centuries, one solution would be simply to call the civ the Phoenicians and include the Carthaginian aspects.

2. Though elephants are obviously linked in AoEO to the Egyptians, I believe there would be ways to use them without stepping on toes. I agree with Fraxure's comment about requiring delicate design work. It would be a risk.

3. I think you are wise to key in on the Market and the Dock as featured Buildings. As mentioned above, Docks are very tricky to balance due to the vary role that water plays on different maps. A civ with a powerful dock would need to be weaker in some area. There may be some ways to feature the Building without tipping the scales too much. But, again, it would require delicate design work.

To this extent, as part of reverse engineering the design decisions of the original developers, we have classified every Building in the game and put together a chart. On further review, we observe that each additional civ features a few different Buildings in ways that have never been featured before in the game. In some sense, this provides a road map for future civ design.

Those empty spaces in the chart above represent uncharted, open areas for future civs to explore without stepping on the toes of prior civs. This chart is not canonical law, but it guides our decisions.

This is pretty high AoEO nerdery, but if anyone is curious about it, they can read more here: https://forums.projectceleste.com/threads/design-blog-1-building-design-theory.4073/

While we are on the subject, here is more about Unit Design for all the civ design geeks in the crowd (which, for better or worse, if you are this deep into this thread, means you): https://forums.projectceleste.com/threads/design-blog-2-unit-design-theory.4154/

4. Finally, BamBam, it looks like you are a huge fan of Carthage. In the spirit of the thread, I am curious if you assume Carthage is off the table, is there a second civ (or more civs) that you could apply these factors to and argue would also make a great addition to the game?

 

[BamBam]

@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

 

[Exclusive0r]

I guess everyone knows I favour the Punic wars

 

[i3ackero]

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.

 

[DynasticPlanet]

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.

 

[Andy P XIII]

Yes,we.can safely take aging up out of Walls or Guard Towers off the table.

 

[DynasticPlanet]

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.

 

[Fraxure022]

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

 

[Andy P XIII]

Whether an existing Building forecloses a proposed Building will always be a subject to consider and debate. I think we could certainly have an Armory combining offensive techs. The point of classifying Buildings is also to recognize how many different kinds of different Buildings civs have on average so we can be make sure a new civ lands in the correct range. We’d probably double up on our Building chart before we fill it out. But we still should be aware if all we are doing is copying other civs and not moving into new areas.

And because so-called Improved Buildings have just tiny changes, it seems much easier to justify having a second Improved Building of the same type than doubling up on a different category. A Stone mine or a gold-tricking Garden, for instance, would feel really derivative, particularly with so many open areas in other Buildings available.