A Dfferent Kind of Civilization Mod: The Anachronism Project.

[birdboy2000]

Version 0.31 up! I've playtested this a fair amount, although being only one person, I can't know for sure if it's a stable release. Hopefully I'll be adding features and customizing civs from here on in instead of filling the board and fixing major bugs, though.

0.3 changelog at http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...1#post12335050

0.2 changelog at http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...1#post12308172


This mod is compatible with 1.3.

So I was looking at Babylon as it appears in Victoria II, and looking at the various Civilization-style mods out there which give you one province to start with and make you start colonizing. And I was hit with an idea. I wanted to replicate one of my favorite parts of the Civilization series; the rivalries between countries from different eras on the same board. And so this began.

This mod replaces an accurate historical representation of the Victorian Age with an anachronistic mish-mash of states from across human history, taken from the selection chosen in various games of the Civilization series. (As of this version, I *think* it's everyone except the Hittites, but I know my Paradox better than my Civ.) Some of the colors have been adjusted to match that game as well, but not all, simply because their colors tend to overlap too much.

These civs alone, however, do not fill the board even at the peak of their historical power, and the modern civs were not given territory they added after 1836. Furthermore, Victoria is about beating up uncivs as well! Therefore, a few have been left on the board. Furthermore, two uncivs, Bai Yue (A renamed Guangxi Clique) and Yunnan were carved out of China, and many more of Russia, Mexico, and assorted other areas. Here are some screenshots to give a look of the map.





I gave little consideration to making uncivs playable, and some might be screwed by geography. The westernization system is the same as vanilla, which should make it quite difficult for all of them, save for Bai Yue. Haven't tried any of them, though, so if you wish for the challenge, feel free to take your barbarians and make them a civilization!

I owe a debt to other Paradox games for the construction of certain Civs, namely the ones of the right age to show up in Rome, along with the Central/South American/West African Civs with flags and name lists ported from EU3.

Balance: China and India are big. Really big. China especially. Three events are included which fire in the first few months of gameplay. One which cuts China's population in half and raises militancy and consciousness, the other which annihilates India's military, leaving it prey for imperial powers. A third event fires for both countries, crippling their industrial output - they still become great powers, but it's not a walkover.

If anything else is gamebreaking, let me know – countries shouldn't be equal, but they should be playable.

Prestige: Starting prestige is calculated based on (my arbitrary assessment of) three factors: your antiquity, your peak, and your longevity. Civilizations like Egypt and China, which ruled over a lot of land for thousands of years, starting early, will have high prestige scores. Civs like the Sioux and the Zulu added to the actual Civ games for a mix of some military prowess, but mainly for fame and geographic diversity, will have 0.

Revolters: All are uncivs. I haven't quite figured out what I want to do with them, so where I removed them vs. left them in has been fairly haphazard.

War: Giving every civilization cores equal to the height of their power would equal too much war, and screw over certain civilizations far more than I would like. On the other hand, there's a relative paucity of uncivs on the board, and they're spaced more evenly out than in vanilla. Badboy is now burned faster and a fair number of overlapping cores added, so this game should be more warlike than vanilla.

Flags: I am not a graphics person. Most of the ones I used are public domain flags/symbols taken from FOTW, Wikipedia, and a couple assorted websites. The rest come from other Paradox games. A lot of the communist flags were made in PAINT.net by turning the background red, and a few of the fascist ones by turning it black or inverting colors. If anyone wants to offer improved flags, go ahead.


Feedback and bug reports are welcome. I hope you enjoy this mod.

[Dyranum]

Where's Poland?
Also, aren't the cossacks a civ in some civilizations game?

Another thing: you should give Franche Comté and/or Bourgougne and/or Alsace-Lorraine to HRE (otherwise the borders look funny, and those areas were a part of the HRE).
Also, the Austrian empire did exist at the same time as the HRE (just no officially).

Last note: I see that you have taped "Viking [something which I can't see]" on Scandinavia, but seriously, it was never called anything like that. Yes I know that you're using civs from civ, but change the name of Scandinavia to Scandinavia, it isn't appropriate to use the word "Viking" for Scandinavia.

[birdboy2000]

Good idea with the HRE borders with regard to France. It'll weaken France a bit, too, so I might as well alter it.

Austrian Empire existed at the same time as the HRE, yes. But as you said, it wasn't official, and it's hard to see a separate Austria and HRE. Besides, Hungary was often under Byzantine or Ottoman influence, and this gives countries a chance to compete over it.

I'm not a civ expert, just an occasional player who thought it a neat idea - did Poland make it in to one of the games? Because if so, they should certainly be added. And if not, I might add them anyway as an unciv to weaken Russia. Same with the Cossacks in Ukraine.

The term used for Scandinavia is "Viking Union", which yes, makes no sense outside of civ. (Similarly, the Celts get "Celtic League" but I suppose it's more justified because there never was a unified Celtic state anyway.) I'd like a term which suggests the Viking Age if one exists, but if not I suppose I'll have to change it back.

[popvox]

Having a "Byzantine Empire" which occupies none of Asia minor, and only parts northern Greece seems a tad strange. Equally the Ottomans just wouldn't be the Ottomans without Istanbul, but I guess if you gave that to them then the Byzanites would have all semblence of credibility stripped away.

I would also suggest giving HRE switzerland to counter France (as well as A-L as has already been suggested)

Poland is not in Civ, but seeing as you have countries like Hungary and Moldavia which are also not in it, I see no reason why it couldn't be included.

What about renaming UK England to keeep in with the civ theme?

What about giving Japan sakhalin and kamchatka? I'm pretty sure they would have got those in a game of Civ

I say keep Vikings to retain the civ theme

[ZomgK3tchup]

I think the map needs some work. Some major civilizations are underrepresented while others arguably aren't necessary.

I'll make a more comprehensive post in a little bit. But nonetheless, very nice. I suggest you check out Victoria Fantasia for flags and inspiration.

[Omega124]

Why not make a comprimise and call it the Kalmar Union? It is the historical name for such a union. Perhaps you could also add the city states from Civ 5 that were never civs in any game, such as Heleniski, Cape Town, Brussels, etc.

EDT: ALso, there is a fourth civ not in BTS. Austria was a bonus civ in Civ 3.

[Yaromir]

I think it would be more fun if the big blobs were broken down further.

Especially Russia
You can put PLC back on the map for example, that'd be something.

[birdboy2000]

Well, I had to fit the Byzantines and Ottomans in on the same map, along with the Greeks, and this seemed the best way to do it, although the borders do look pretty weird.

Poland and Finland (at the very least) will be added for the next release, because Russia's too big/powerful anyway. Not sure if I want a giant unciv PLC, or if it'd be better to have Poland, the baltics, and maybe Ukraine as separate states.

City-states are a great idea. Admittedly, uncivs take their gameplay role, but I'm sure I can put in a few.

Japanese Sakhalin makes sense, but if I give that Kamchatka based on how real civ games turn out, that opens up an enormous can of worms which I frankly don't want to deal with.

[ZomgK3tchup]

Hm, here's some thoughts. The Celtic/Viking states should be dissolved in favor of more predominant states such as Denmark, Ireland, and Sweden. The Aztecs/Mayans should not exist at the same time since the Aztecs were successors to the Mayans. The United Kingdom should simply be Great Britain since it does not include Ireland. The Byzantine Empire should be purple. Likewise, it should lose land in Europe in favor of Bulgaria and company and gain some in Anatolia.

A game like this, imo, is best if you take "snapshots" of empires and put them on the map. Like Germany under Bismark, France under Napoleon, etc, and adjust the borders accordingly.

[Omega124]

Hm, here's some thoughts. The Celtic/Viking states should be dissolved in favor of more predominant states such as Denmark, Ireland, and Sweden.

Remember, this is based off of Civ. There hasn't been an Irish or Danish civ. There has, however, been a Viking and a Celtic civ. This allows the two regions to be much stronger than if we split them off. In fact, if anything, we should make them stronger, with all of Scotland going to Celts and Finland to Vikings.

The Aztecs/Mayans should not exist at the same time since the Aztecs were successors to the Mayans.

No, they weren't. They are different cultures. They had a different launguage, different religion, different systym of government, different moral standards, etc. That's like saying Rome and Greece shouldn't be together because the Romans were the successors to the Greeks.

The United Kingdom should simply be Great Britain since it does not include Ireland.

Fair Point.

The Byzantine Empire should be purple. Likewise, it should lose land in Europe in favor of Bulgaria and company and gain some in Anatolia.

In civ, Byzantium has traditionally been Black. Also, if Byzantium is purple, then what should Rome be? And I like the current borders, as it gives both the Byzantines and the Ottomans a chance in what will inventibly be a civil war. If Byzantium spreads into Antolia, where would the Ottomans go?

[ZomgK3tchup]

Remember, this is based off of Civ. There hasn't been an Irish or Danish civ. There has, however, been a Viking and a Celtic civ. This allows the two regions to be much stronger than if we split them off. In fact, if anything, we should make them stronger, with all of Scotland going to Celts and Finland to Vikings.

Ehh. I didn't think this was that closely based on Civ.

No, they weren't. They are different cultures. They had a different launguage, different religion, different systym of government, different moral standards, etc. That's like saying Rome and Greece shouldn't be together because the Romans were the successors to the Greeks.

If Rome was based in Athens, then yes they would. The Aztecs and Mayans occupied (more or less) the same territory. You don't necessarily have to be a direct successor to be a successor state.

In civ, Byzantium has traditionally been Black. Also, if Byzantium is purple, then what should Rome be? And I like the current borders, as it gives both the Byzantines and the Ottomans a chance in what will inventibly be a civil war. If Byzantium spreads into Antolia, where would the Ottomans go?

The Byzantines were always associated with the color purple, so much so that a shade was named after them. I'd give western Antolia to the Byzantines and central and eastern to the Ottomans. I'd also give the Ottomans more teritory in the east. After all, that's where the Turkish people came from; the Ottomans originated in western Persia.

Oh yeah, and I'd give the Romans a gold or red shade based on their flag.

[birdboy2000]

Ehh. I didn't think this was that closely based on Civ.

If Rome was based in Athens, then yes they would. The Aztecs and Mayans occupied (more or less) the same territory. You don't necessarily have to be a direct successor to be a successor state.

It's fairly closely based on Civ at the moment. I mean, I included the *Zulu*.

As for the Aztecs and Mayans, you're... well, wrong. Mayans and Aztecs coexisted at the time of the Spanish conquest - the Mayans were further south, as I have them. Admittedly, the *peak* of the Mayan civilization was hundreds of years before the Aztecs, but there were still plenty of Maya states around during the height of the Aztec Empire.

I'm not sure what to do with the colors, honestly, but red rome and purple byzantium look a bit more appealing aesthetically, and I abandoned traditional Civ colors anyway. I'll change it.

[ZomgK3tchup]

It's fairly closely based on Civ at the moment. I mean, I included the *Zulu*.

Cheater!

As for the Aztecs and Mayans, you're... well, wrong. Mayans and Aztecs coexisted at the time of the Spanish conquest - the Mayans were further south, as I have them. Admittedly, the *peak* of the Mayan civilization was hundreds of years before the Aztecs, but there were still plenty of Maya states around during the height of the Aztec Empire.

Fair enough. I was probably thinking about the Toltecs. Central American history isn't my friend. D:

[Omega124]

If Rome was based in Athens, then yes they would. The Aztecs and Mayans occupied (more or less) the same territory. You don't necessarily have to be a direct successor to be a successor state.

Stop. Please, Stop. They did not occupy the same land. The Aztecs occupied southern Mexico, predominitly near Mexico City. Meanwhile, the Mayans were in the Yucatán Peninsula and most of the Central American countries.

Here's a map comparision

Aztecs:



Red is where the Aztecs were.

Mayans:



Red is where Mayans were, black is greatest extent of Mesoamerican culutre.

The Byzantines were always associated with the color purple, so much so that a shade was named after them. I'd give western Antolia to the Byzantines and central and eastern to the Ottomans. I'd also give the Ottomans more teritory in the east. After all, that's where the Turkish people came from; the Ottomans originated in western Persia.

But agan, this is based off of Civ, and Byzantium has always been black, and Romans Purple. The Romans have also always associated themselves with the color purple; they found it a color of power and nobility. What makes Byzantium so special that they get the purple and the Romans don't?

As for the Turks, while they were orgionally much eastern than they currently are, that's not where their "core" areas was. Their empire was centered in Antolia, and Antolia is what they get. Meanwhile, the core area of Byzantium was always the European side (Mainly Greece, but that's not going to work out real well). Shouldn't both sides have their own core side, and then duke it out to see who gets it all?

Also, the Turks orginated as far back as the Altai Mountians, which is where the Mongolian, Chinese, Russian, and Kazakh borders meet. The more you know.

Oh yeah, and I'd give the Romans a gold or red shade based on their flag.

Both the Byzantium flag and standard was also gold and red. So again, I don't see why Rome is so special that they get the red abd Byzantium doesn't.

EDIT: Ninja'd

[Yaromir]

Byzantium is just Eastern Roman Empire

[ZomgK3tchup]

-Snip-

Yeah, I guess I brain farted and mistook Mayan territory for the Aztec's Toltec predecessors.

Anachronistically, we associate the Romans with gold/red and the Byzantines with purple. The Byzantines never even called themselves Byzantine. They referred to themselves as the Romans.

Also, here's a map of the Byzantine Empire in the 10th century:



The Byzantines gave way to Bulgaria in Europe and the Turks in the east. Since the Byzantines can't have Greece, I recommend giving Bulgaria and some Balkan nations their independence, giving some Antolia territory and letting the Byzantines and Turks fight over it.

[birdboy2000]

Yeah, I guess I brain farted and mistook Mayan territory for the Aztec's Toltec predecessors.

Anachronistically, we associate the Romans with gold/red and the Byzantines with purple. The Byzantines never even called themselves Byzantine. They referred to themselves as the Romans.

Also, here's a map of the Byzantine Empire in the 10th century:



The Byzantines gave way to Bulgaria in Europe and the Turks in the east. Since the Byzantines can't have Greece, I recommend giving Bulgaria and some Balkan nations their independence, giving some Antolia territory and letting the Byzantines and Turks fight over it.

The problem with doing that is that the Turkish civ isn't the Turks, it's the *Ottomans*. And the part of Anatolia the Ottos formed in was precisely the part closest geographically to Byzantium.

Honestly, I'm happy with the setup of the Byzantines vis-a-vis the Ottomans, although perhaps some revolters could be carved out of the balkans. (Serbia and Bosnia, specifically. Dalmatia going either to Bosnia or to a newly freed Venice. The Bulgaria on that map, after all, was reconquered under Basil II, and Albania also stayed in the Byzantine orbit a very long time, so they can stay Byzantine.) Note that they do have cores on one another, so Byzantium can reclaim Anatolia, or the Ottomans could claim Constantinople.

[Dyranum]

The term used for Scandinavia is "Viking Union", which yes, makes no sense outside of civ. (Similarly, the Celts get "Celtic League" but I suppose it's more justified because there never was a unified Celtic state anyway.) I'd like a term which suggests the Viking Age if one exists, but if not I suppose I'll have to change it back.

Well, Scandinavia is a VERY (note the emphasis) old name for the region, AFAIK it predates the "Viking Age".
Though if you want, you could name it "The Union of Kalmar" since that's what it unofficially was called when united (and that was only some hundred years after the Viking Age).
It would look nice seeing that big name plastered over the whole region.

But, the most logical one is "Scandinavia".

[ZomgK3tchup]

The problem with doing that is that the Turkish civ isn't the Turks, it's the *Ottomans*. And the part of Anatolia the Ottos formed in was precisely the part closest geographically to Byzantium.

The Ottoman Empire was ruled by a Turkish dynasty. Hence why the modern-day state is called Turkey.

There really isn't an issue of where the Ottomans could go. This is a map of their empire at its greatest extent.

[birdboy2000]

The Ottoman Empire was ruled by a Turkish dynasty. Hence why the modern-day state is called Turkey.

There really isn't an issue of where the Ottomans could go. This is a map of their empire at its greatest extent.

Yeah, I know. But they formed in northwestern Anatolia, and their first capital was Busra. And since I'm *already* taking away Constantinople and Edirne, giving the Byzantines parts of Anatolia as well seems a bit mean, even if I compensated them elsewhere.