cool bro, it has to show up in the 17X17 pixel scaling. you could even test the icons by scaling them down now, and seeing if you can still more or less make it out.

new version above and idea for alpha mask will be implemented tomorrow. G'night !

After several attempt at giving original shape with transparency, I ended with an obvious one :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/105110/GarretComTransp.png

please note that edges are irregular.

You can grab the upload (http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/105110/Communism2R.zip)ed file with dds64 & dds17 as well.

i really like the new one with alpha around the icon. that style looks better than the original square style i used in 2nd rev 2.0

OK ! I have concept for conservatism and anarchism now. I wonder if I will end up with wath I see !

By the way, the communist icon is based on communist party from metapraguian area (in other word from Hroch's country).

the only thing that i ask, is that you use the "dollar sign swastika" for neo-liberalism.

canadian conservatism needs a new symbol too :)

My plan is to refresh the symbols you have already in game so the swastikollar will stay in !

Please Garret, see the new thread !

1. I'm thinking that there will be again, two branches of units. America, mexico, and canada will share the same base units, as well as Cuba, Zapatista and Rebel.

2. Although i want 2 UU's per civ. and we need to have a Unique building for each.

3. I also want 2 units per military row techs.

4. There are alot of new graphics out in the C&C forum, and i also plan on doing the infantry units myself, by hand.

5. Question: should any of the UU's (like america's) be allowed to be air units, or even sea units? or should all the UU's be ground?

Here's an idea. How about a technical unit?

Since I notice that sometimes in this mod, players can have their oil resources disabled, preventing them from building armored units, I figure that this could serve as kind of a plugger/redneck armored unit, weaker overall than others, but able to be built without resources vital to others, since it's just a gun and maybe extra armor welded onto a salvaged civillian pickup truck.

Somebody on these boards is taking vehicle requests, so it might be worth asking for.

Would this unit be only for USA 'n friends?

Would this unit be only for USA 'n friends?

Nah, sounds more like a universal unit.

well, someone should make a pickup truck for a unit!!

Now THAT I would really like to see. Paticularly a pickup truck defeating a tank, I can just see the battle in my head.

Now THAT I would really like to see. Paticularly a pickup truck defeating a tank, I can just see the battle in my head.

I figure there could be two versions, one with a chain gun, and another with a bazooka. They'd get bonuses against gunpowder units and armored units, respectively.

OK, I'm going to request a truck!

yeah a technical would be awesome...

btw i wonder why they call them technicals? ...

maybe they picked at random ! :lol:

if the US army named them, then probably (and it probably involves alcohol too)

It is general Pietrus that found the name perhaps.

I think it's comic irony. For some of the third world, that is high-tech. If you think I'm kidding, I must inform you that I saw a documentary filmed about a movie theatre in some backwater nation. The "theatre" was a normal-sized TV in a room withj folding chairs in it.

yeah, the astonishing poverty of the third world is staggering for westerners (which i assume that everyone in this forums are)

unfortunately for us (depending how you look), i envision the western ideals of consumerism will eventually crumble, along with it the middle class. I feel that when i die an old man, i will be living in a third world slum, along with the rest of the teeming masses.

We(sterners) have huge responsibility in the current state of the world. The main reason is/was assymetric trade relations. Particularly, Africa still suffers from the slave trade and colonial borders. Actually, WTO tends to balance things with globalization but it often seems to be at the expense of western people ( and advantage of western companies ). I don't think consumerism will crumble but natural resources is going to be the weak link of the current system.

yeah, hence the endless slum scenario. the highest population density regions of Earth also happen to be the lowest resource consuming population. What that means is the ghettos ect all have more people living there with less consumption.

If mankind even survives the Greenhouse Cliff, this will be the new form of our "cities"

I don't think consumerism will crumble but natural resources is going to be the weak link of the current system.

Consumerism and natural resources seem to be pretty stable in the short term. Like always, the poor will get hit with any problems that arise. When peak oil comes, the cost for the biofuels will be on their shoulders. As global warming increases the severity of hurricanes and snowstorms, the rich will move to the safe areas, and the poor will only be able to afford the dangerous areas they leave behind. Anything the government can handle it will, by providing contracts to rich people and taxing the poor. This is where the short term instability lies. The rich don't really have anything to tie them down in the US. Countries like China or India would be happy to accept them. They can feel free to draw as much money out of the country as possible, as quickly as possible, and flee went the country collapses like the Soviet Union. Keeping us perpetually at war is a good way to keep those no-bid contracts flowing until the country has been bled dry and mass poverty ensues. As soon as they move their investments to China or India, you get mass unemployment, like the Great Depression. Eventually the country will rebuild, and the cycle will start all over again.

What I personally think should be done is to keep globalism, but shift it to a more regulated form that has the average man in mind.

Part of the problem is that while economic giant countries like the USA try to help the rest of the world, some of it isn't necessarily the right way. The aid is too centered around foreign investment and spread of corporations. Since they come from far wealthier countries, they can afford to pay workers better wages than the local businesses, and can afford to import cheaper capital. But the local businesses suffer as a result, so while certain men employeed by or investing in the foreign corporations prosper, the country's economy as a whole does not grow.

In the USA and similar nations, the other extreme is causing problems. On paper, economic growth is substantial, because enough businesses are still based in the USA and they are still measured and taxed, but the effect of the profits on most citizens is small, because most of the money is flowing overseas. A few American corporations prosper, but the average American workers are finding it harder to find jobs. And that's not just the menial labor anymore, either. Now skilled labor is being outsourced as well.

I believe the UN should be more empowered and take a proactive role at regulating world trade. Rather than being invested in, countries should simply be paid to develop their own business and infrastructure. I do think we need to keep some degree of New World Order, because as long as nations can negotiate and trade with each other, they are less likely to start wars. But there should be more of a safety net to solve what problems do exist.

What I personally think should be done is to keep globalism, but shift it to a more regulated form that has the average man in mind.

Part of the problem is that while economic giant countries like the USA try to help the rest of the world, some of it isn't necessarily the right way. The aid is too centered around foreign investment and spread of corporations. Since they come from far wealthier countries, they can afford to pay workers better wages than the local businesses, and can afford to import cheaper capital. But the local businesses suffer as a result, so while certain men employeed by or investing in the foreign corporations prosper, the country's economy as a whole does not grow.

In the USA and similar nations, the other extreme is causing problems. On paper, economic growth is substantial, because enough businesses are still based in the USA and they are still measured and taxed, but the effect of the profits on most citizens is small, because most of the money is flowing overseas. A few American corporations prosper, but the average American workers are finding it harder to find jobs. And that's not just the menial labor anymore, either. Now skilled labor is being outsourced as well.

I believe the UN should be more empowered and take a proactive role at regulating world trade. Rather than being invested in, countries should simply be paid to develop their own business and infrastructure. I do think we need to keep some degree of New World Order, because as long as nations can negotiate and trade with each other, they are less likely to start wars. But there should be more of a safety net to solve what problems do exist.

I think you should read a book entitles Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Reading that pretty much wiped my slate clean of any vestiges of belief in the "Globalization" sceme. "Globalization is basically what norseman2 said will happen in the western countries. But it has been happening hardcore in the "third world" since the fifties and sixties. The United States and it's Investors and Corporations simply purchase the ruling class of already impoverished nations for cheap bribes, and then the ruling class signs over the rights to the nations resourses and workforce.

I think you should read a book entitles Confessions of an Economic Hitman. Reading that pretty much wiped my slate clean of any vestiges of belief in the "Globalization" sceme. "Globalization is basically what norseman2 said will happen in the western countries. But it has been happening hardcore in the "third world" since the fifties and sixties. The United States and it's Investors and Corporations simply purchase the ruling class of already impoverished nations for cheap bribes, and then the ruling class signs over the rights to the nations resourses and workforce.

Well, with regards to the problems it causes in the third world, I completely agree with that, but I guess my question is, how would you see to fix that? Simply regressing to the sort of state-centric, mercantile economics that ultimately brought on WWI would hardly improve things.

At least in the first world, there is stability between nations, because they fight less over resources. Not that I am one of those quixotic idealists that think that any peace is desireable, even a one of vast wealth inequalities, but to return politics and econonomics to parochiality is not going to fix the situation.

In cases such as that of the Zapatistas, they are right to want more control over their own resources, but I see it more in terms of what all people deserve, rather than what individual regions deserve. A weak nation wanting more power and resources in its control is understandable. But when a nation that is already rich and powerful still wants more, it stops being patriotism and starts being imperialism.

Profiteering at the expense of those less fortunate visibly occurs whether the aristocrats belong to to a modern, private corporation, or the European Monarcies of the colonial age, but at least when it's multilateral and wealth is divided among countries, rather than nationalized, world powers fight less over the green pastures, and while being economically oppressed by other countries is unfortunate, so is being politically and militarily opressed.

I'm not saying that this situation is perfect, or even desireable. Hell, I'd like few things better than to murder every DeBeers executive and dye my protest banners red with their flowing blood. Still, I hold that improvement should be progressive, not regressive. We should probably switch from global capitalism to some sort of global socialism, but to adopt a system with no global elements whatsoever isn't even amiss, it's just flat-out impossible. The technology people have at their disposal these days means that regardless of what political measures pass, it is plenty easy to reach out and touch someone.

Government regulation of capitalistic behavior dominating this technology is not a very ideal solution, because governments will fall prey to capitalistic behavior themselves. The only body I can see fit for such regulation would be an empowered UN. The advantage of that plan would be that the members' own greed would cause them to regulate each other, rather than behave excessively, as they would when left to themselves. And while thus far, that sounds like capitalism, that's just the means. The ends would be redistributing wealth amoung poorer people of the world, and it would help that, instead of basing the redistribution around mere nationstates, it would be a multinational body that could look at people and their living standards as a whole, and decide what all people, themselves, deserve.

Back on subject of the mod, could we remove the international peacekeepers popup that flashes each turn? It slows the game down tremendously, and after the first time seeing it, it's not necessary to remind me I got the unit, as I'm always asked where to move it, anyway.

that peacekeeps pop up i wouldn't mind removing after its first showing. The problem is, when Second revolution 3.0 starts production, we will need competant coders to help us :)

as to your enjoyable rant, your heart is in the right place, but i don't think that the UN is up to the snuff of being a world government. I mean they can't even do much to help some poor ass countries from getting slaughtered, i don't think they will be the solution to the problems of man.

that peacekeeps pop up i wouldn't mind removing after its first showing. The problem is, when Second revolution 3.0 starts production, we will need competant coders to help us :)

as to your enjoyable rant, your heart is in the right place, but i don't think that the UN is up to the snuff of being a world government. I mean they can't even do much to help some poor ass countries from getting slaughtered, i don't think they will be the solution to the problems of man.

That's the current state of the UN. Maybe if it actually had teeth, it would do its job better. And while of course, it is only as strong as its member states let it be, I could see many of them contributing more to the UN in the future, as most members are pissed at the USA's new unilateral intervention, and could see reason to counter it. Not that I'm optimistic, but that would be the best way to do things, and that's how the UN currently handles rogue states like North Korea. If dealing with a much more powerful rogue, like the new USA, they would need to be more empowered, but could still use similar tactics.

One more thing about the mod itself. I've noticed that the bit of the core game that asks what you want to build in a city the momenht you capture it is not present here. Its absense makes the game more confusing. What happened to it.

hmm im not sure. there will have to be some recoding in the newer version. I would like to focus on simple python mods and merging existing Mod Comps.

The tricky part will be trying to find mod comps that will complement the theme of the game, and not detract or distract from it. Also i want to keep the turn lag short and maintain "vanilla style" unit balance and tech progression.

Perhaps we should lengthen the tech tree? should we greatly modify tech tree costs, or leave it more or less the same?

Wonders beyond the support wonders?

Government regulation of capitalistic behavior dominating this technology is not a very ideal solution, because governments will fall prey to capitalistic behavior themselves. The only body I can see fit for such regulation would be an empowered UN. The advantage of that plan would be that the members' own greed would cause them to regulate each other, rather than behave excessively, as they would when left to themselves. And while thus far, that sounds like capitalism, that's just the means. The ends would be redistributing wealth amoung poorer people of the world, and it would help that, instead of basing the redistribution around mere nationstates, it would be a multinational body that could look at people and their living standards as a whole, and decide what all people, themselves, deserve.


I think you just explained why that wouldn't work. The UN is composed of its member countries. The conferences are held by representatives appointed from those countries. Those representatives will, in most cases, be representing the corporations who got their employer into power. For example, you may have noticed John Bolton, our former ambassador to the UN, is very keen on invading Iran as soon as possible. This works out nicely for companies that sell tanks, cruise missiles, guided bombs, etc. He was nominated into his position by George Bush. The Bush administration had initially planned to attack 7 countries in 5 years (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6ARihMrxdjU), including Iran. When you start to notice all those no-big contracts going to Haliburton, and all the rest of the extreme overexpenditures on this war, it's pretty clear who Bush is loyal to, and Bolton was chosen by Bush, on behalf of those companies.

Now, if people like him are running all the UN meetings, they aren't going to be interested in helping the poor, unless they are representing companies who can skim some profit off of that. For the most part, they will only be interested in maintaining the status quo in order to maintain and expand the economic and political power of their respective corporations. The only competition between them will be the corporations in countries who get hit with sanctions because they're cutting into more powerful corporations' markets.

yup...........

Wonders beyond the support wonders?

I don't have an idea of what to do add, except for the Vegas Strip and Area 51, but they'd already be built inVegas at the start. However, I think the 9-11 Memorial wonder shouldn't require global capitalism. Hell, it shouldn't even require state capitalism. It's not like Bush supporters were the only ones upset by 9-11, and since the Rebels own New York, the City where it was supposed to be built, they should be able to build it. And also, please give it a real model, not a primitive.

I figure you could give cities besides Las Vegas pre-existing wonders that aren't in the default game, for the sake of realism. Maybe give Milwaukee a nationally prestigious brewery, give Florida a few theme parks, give Seattle the Space Needle, that sort of thing.

How about this: we add a zoo structure to the game. When Advanced Genetic Engineering is discovered, so long as players have enough zoos existing in their civilization, they can build the Jurassic Park wonder. Now that would be cool.

i would like it if some one could reskin the 9/11 memorial tower? the reason it looks like that is the skin is improperly referenced.

I think you just explained why that wouldn't work. The UN is composed of its member countries. The conferences are held by representatives appointed from those countries. Those representatives will, in most cases, be representing the corporations who got their employer into power. For example, you may have noticed John Bolton, our former ambassador to the UN, is very keen on invading Iran as soon as possible. This works out nicely for companies that sell tanks, cruise missiles, guided bombs, etc. He was nominated into his position by George Bush. The Bush administration had initially planned to attack 7 countries in 5 years (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6ARihMrxdjU), including Iran. When you start to notice all those no-big contracts going to Haliburton, and all the rest of the extreme overexpenditures on this war, it's pretty clear who Bush is loyal to, and Bolton was chosen by Bush, on behalf of those companies.

Now, if people like him are running all the UN meetings, they aren't going to be interested in helping the poor, unless they are representing companies who can skim some profit off of that. For the most part, they will only be interested in maintaining the status quo in order to maintain and expand the economic and political power of their respective corporations. The only competition between them will be the corporations in countries who get hit with sanctions because they're cutting into more powerful corporations' markets.

While there is no doubt that greed still seeps into the UN, the whole bit about defense contractors conspiring to push governments into war for the sake of profit is still more likely when nations act unilaterally. Less foreign support means more reliance on local military contractors. Furthermore, constant defiance of the UN means that there is less to stop a country from going to war in the first place.

The UN isn't exempt from corruption, but I see many of its other charter members as being much less corrupt than the USA, at least. If they were able to successfully defy the US and convince them not to attack nations, the defense contractors would definitely not get their way. As for socialized world charity, that may be an unrealistic dream, yes, but allowing foreign aid to become multilateral in nature is definitely possible, and would at least partially stop the predators.

The way I see it, the problem isn't necessarily free trade, it's a corporatist system that calls itself free trade, but could actually be considered neo-mercantilism. A big part of the problem is that governments act on behalf of monopolistic corporations, helping to spread them and squelch their competitors. After a point, it isn't even clear where a nation's fortune 500 companies end and its government begins, and the state acts as a monopolistic corporation.

Especially in the USA, we've almost regressed to hereditary aristocracy not unlike that of the Euporean monarchies of old. While a democracy on paper, the USA's political system is too easily bought out by the wealthiest political candidates, and the same so-called "first-families" of America have been able to offer such candidates ever since the USA was founded. The difference is that in modern America, wealth comes first, then helps people gain political position, rather than the reverse being true, but the end result is the same, and so is the ultimate cause: being born into a priviledged family.

So why my idea of multilateral aid to help fight this? Capitalism is based on greed, but at least in theory, the greed will be quelled somewhat if put at odds with greed from a competitor. Right now, foreign aid consists less of helping a country, and more of buying it out. However, if there were several equally-powerful nations invested in it at once, any invested nation that tries to gouge could be met with threats of striking deals with the competing nations. This would keep the investors more responsible to the people, in spite of their inherrant greed.

And what if it fails? Then the people should feel free to take up arms and take what they need themselves. But while I can see that happening in the third world, and even Europe, I doubt it will happen in the USA. I am not afraid to say this: I am incredibly dissapointed in my countrymen, and hope to move out of the USA as soon as possible. Hoping for a revolution is too optimistic; most of these fools don't even vote, and many who do can't do so wisely. Americans as a whole are compacent. And hell, if there ever actually was a successful people's revolution here, I'd be extremely skeptical of the American People's ability to govern themselves.

LOL how i often think about the last paragraph you wrote.

And what if it fails? Then the people should feel free to take up arms and take what they need themselves. But while I can see that happening in the third world, and even Europe, I doubt it will happen in the USA. I am not afraid to say this: I am incredibly dissapointed in my countrymen, and hope to move out of the USA as soon as possible. Hoping for a revolution is too optimistic; most of these fools don't even vote, and many who do can't do so wisely. Americans as a whole are compacent. And hell, if there ever actually was a successful people's revolution here, I'd be extremely skeptical of the American People's ability to govern themselves.


This comment makes me ummm well wondering where you could possibly move to that you consider to be better than the USA. The only way I'd ever move out of the country is if the democrats evil plan to rule the world actually happens. You know where if Hilary Clinton or Barack Hussein Osama I mean Obama becomes President then with their democrat congress they make the illegals legal. Then they all vote democrat. The US becomes a one party system. Then a fascist nation where all free thinking people, republicans and rich corporations are destroyed in an evil genocide.

Are you serious ?

This comment makes me ummm well wondering where you could possibly move to that you consider to be better than the USA. The only way I'd ever move out of the country is if the democrats evil plan to rule the world actually happens. You know where if Hilary Clinton or Barack Hussein Osama I mean Obama becomes President then with their democrat congress they make the illegals legal. Then they all vote democrat. The US becomes a one party system. Then a fascist nation where all free thinking people, republicans and rich corporations are destroyed in an evil genocide.

I trust barak obama and clinton II about as much i as trust bush II
(or less, bush is at least honest about burning the constitution and admitting his felonies on national tv.)

I think america is already a one party system with two factions ("republicans" and "democrats"). and these two factions have only the slightest of differences.

Are you serious ?

I think it was a parody... Why else would he bold Hussein in Obama's name, as if that had any significance whatsoever?

If that wasn't a parody.... :eek:

dont worry we get some people who have divergent views here from time to time. just try not to flame anyone, coz moderators watch these threads carefully.

I can't even count the numbers of party in France. Some of them are quite ridiculous like CPNT which means "Hunting, Fishing, Nature & Tradition". What is very strange for me in the American system is that electors have not the same weight depending on which state they are living in.

for instance, in arizona my state, there is a large retirement city. Sun City is composed of 55 years and older.

What that means, is arizona will always be a "red" republican state, since the electoral collage representative counts the votes in the state, and then himself make the "vote" for the whole state (red or blue).

so basically, if you vote blue in arizona, it doesn't count at all, since the state will always vote red, no matter what.

I think it was a parody... Why else would he bold Hussein in Obama's name, as if that had any significance whatsoever?

If that wasn't a parody.... :eek:


Yes I'm joking :lol: I don't support any of the Democratic candidates but Bush isn't doing nearly as good as could be and I think we all know that.

Yes I'm joking :lol: I don't support any of the Democratic candidates but Bush isn't doing nearly as good as could be and I think we all know that.

Yeah, i think that the true power should go to neither republican nor democrat.

Yeah, i think that the true power should go to neither republican nor democrat.

It should go to me! :D

I would vote for you Dale!! :goodjob:

The human bomb is the true power !

human bomb? like "i am da bomb mod maker?"

no, french rock band "Telephone" and the song "la bombe humaine". ;)

right on! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqhTy5U4RVk):D

do you like ? I know it is in french but still ...

i like it :goodjob:

This band is THE cornerstone of french rock. Try the other titles, they are good.

added new patch 1.7

now there is a Stryker AFV like i had originally intended