View Full Version : Civs Discussion


NikNaks
May 11, 2008, 02:53 PM
Here is a list of all the civilizations planned to be included. They are up for comment and discussion.

United States of America - controls Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Panama, Diego Garcia (Indian ocean), Pacific Islands (Midway, Guam, Marshal Islands, Samoa, etc), Iraq, Afghanistan.
Canada
Mexico
China
North Korea
Russia
Kazakhstan
Israel
Palestine (gaza strip + west bank).
Egypt
Iran - controls Syria.
South Korea
Nigeria
Pakistan
India
Venezuela - controls Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay.
Colombia
Brazil
Argentina
Myanmar
Japan
Australia
Philippines
Republic of Indonesia
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
South Africa
Taiwan
European Union - Euro nations.
Permanent Neutrality - Switzerland (capital), Costa Rica, Liechtenstein Turkmenistan.
NATO (non-EU) - UK (capital)*, Turkey, Iceland, Norway, Croatia, Albania.
Independent African States - Angola (capital), Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Zimbabwe, Kenya.
African Union- all African countries that don't fall in to our "independent" or "barbarian" groups.
Failed States - Somalia, Eritrea, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea. There should also be strong hostile barbarian rebel cities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and western Sudan. Weaker barbarian groups elsewhere, maybe without cities, including in Columbia, Chechnya (Russia), Mexico, Algeria, Basque (EU) and Tibet (China).
Independent Nations - Papua New Guinea, Brunei, Singapore, Dominican republic, Peru, Chile, Vietnam

*The UK has been selected as a non-EU NATO country because of its alignment in international politics and its geographical location.

NikNaks
May 11, 2008, 02:55 PM
More details on the barbarians:

Failed States - Will build military units; Always at war; Likely to attack
Permanent Neutrality - Cannot build military units (other than basic defenses); Cannot declare war; If war is declared on them, all bordering civs declare war on the attacker (unless they have alliances with the attacker)
Peaceful Nations - Can build military units; Can (but very unlikely to) attack others; If attacked, nothing really happens

Bahmo
May 11, 2008, 03:27 PM
Have we decided yet whether Kazkhstan is united with Mongolia and the other Former Soviet Socialist Republic Stans?

lamppost4
May 11, 2008, 05:35 PM
I'm glad to see that Taiwan is on the list. :)

TheLastOne36
May 11, 2008, 06:30 PM
I think Oceanic islands(excluding American ones, Indonesia and maybe Papua new Guinea) should be owned by Australia.

Also i don't think it would be much of a problem to include a SE Asia union. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Southeast_Asian_Nations)

Good luck on the mod!

Kao'chai
May 11, 2008, 08:19 PM
rebels in tibet?

Amogos
May 12, 2008, 06:05 PM
I think that Spain, France and Germany can be there own nations because Europe has never been united, other than the Roman Empire, and it doesn’t make sense for them to be under one rule. Portugal, Italy, Greece, Romania, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, Iceland, Poland and all other small nations should be NATO; I don’t know the politics so there could be more. Scandinavia can be one group or something. There should also be a bunch of can’t contact barbarian groups in Africa that only think "kill neighbor and don’t die my self". There should also be some way (for us future dictators :evil:) to separate a nation into barbarian groups: for example Russia attacks the USA and the US falls apart and becomes a barbarian state based on the actual states geography (suposedly :mischief:).

NikNaks
May 13, 2008, 03:06 PM
Have we decided yet whether Kazkhstan is united with Mongolia and the other Former Soviet Socialist Republic Stans?I think we decided against it, but I'm not too sure.
I'm glad to see that Taiwan is on the list. :) Well, it's an area of international interest, so it has to be :D

I think Oceanic islands(excluding American ones, Indonesia and maybe Papua new Guinea) should be owned by Australia.I agree. I'm not sure how the map is going to look, but if there are cities in the Pacific they'll be either Australian or NATO controlled.

Also i don't think it would be much of a problem to include a SE Asia union. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Southeast_Asian_Nations)If not sure if we ever considered ASEAN. It might be a good idea to cut down on some civs.
Good luck on the mod!:D
rebels in tibet?Yes, it's down as a failed state. It's not particularly stable, is it? ;)
I think that Spain, France and Germany can be there own nations because Europe has never been united, other than the Roman Empire, and it doesn’t make sense for them to be under one rule. Portugal, Italy, Greece, Romania, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Hungary, Switzerland, Iceland, Poland and all other small nations should be NATO; I don’t know the politics so there could be more. Scandinavia can be one group or something.I completely disagree on two points:
1) We need to cut down on the number of civs
2) Western Europe is more or less one country now. If you've ever been in recent times, you'll know that international border controls on the mainland are practically non-existent, and people consider themselves European almost as strongly as their national identity.
There should also be a bunch of can’t contact barbarian groups in Africa that only think "kill neighbor and don’t die my self".What do you mean there? There should also be some way (for us future dictators :evil:) to separate a nation into barbarian groups: for example Russia attacks the USA and the US falls apart and becomes a barbarian state based on the actual states geography (supposedly :mischief:).That's interesting, but I'm not sure if that would be totally realistic. There'd probably be unrest and certain amounts of instability, but making the entire country into a Barbarian State is a tad OTT in my opinion.

Thanks for your comments, keep them coming :)

Amogos
May 14, 2008, 01:07 AM
Like I said I don't know the politics but at least let there be two nations: West and East Europe so there’s the possibility of war between European countries. And to clarify; if a nation is to stable (US) and are attacked (Russia) stability will instantly drop because of the fear and confusion. Also in Africa duo to the amount of countries on Earth and the number that are getting in the game I think places like Uganda should be barbarian but will attack other barbarians so they don't team up were they should make war in reality.

ianinsane
May 14, 2008, 02:25 AM
2) Western Europe is more or less one country now. If you've ever been in recent times, you'll know that international border controls on the mainland are practically non-existent, and people consider themselves European almost as strongly as their national identity.

I wish it was like that. But nevertheless I totally agree that we have to cut down the number of civs. And we can be sure that in the future years the developement will be more and more towards what NikNaks93 described.
The only alternative for us would be to merge Western Europe into one NATO civ. And I think that people here have been feeling more like EU citizens than NATO citizens since the Cold War ended. So that would be absolutely no option.

Like I said I don't know the politics but at least let there be two nations: West and East Europe so there’s the possibility of war between European countries.

I guess that was be achieved by including Russia. So there could be a war (why is always everything about war? *sigh* ;) ) between Russia, which controls countries like Belorussia and Ukraine, and EU and/or NATO...

Joe Harker
May 16, 2008, 05:47 AM
Permanent Neutrality - Switzerland (capital), Costa Rica, Liechtenstein Turkmenistan.

Oh thank god Liechenstein isn't going to declare war on me! :lol: (Can you even get them on the map! :eek:)

Diego Garcia (Indian ocean),

Isn't that British?, or is it British but is lent to the US due to lend lease in WW2

Maybe, big maybe but you could put Canada under either Nato or US if you are desperatly trying to cut down on civs, and Give the Gaza Strip to Eygpt and West Bank to whoever controls Jordan, but only if you are looking to cut down civs, otherwise the list is fine :goodjob:, and good luck, look forward to playing it :)

Mr Historical
May 16, 2008, 12:59 PM
Could you possibly use the UK as a seperate nation,and put the smaller nations into US or EU- it might seem slightly bizarre that the uk controls bits of eastern europe
And just to add my voice to the debate on the eu,I would say that while internally,they appear the same,france and germany take entirely different foriegn policies,Also,93% europeans still regarded themselves as french/german/polish whatever compared to7% as european first.Single european nations or at least france + germany have much more effect on world affairs than say,vietnam or the sudan.

Arwon
May 17, 2008, 12:56 PM
On the Pacific region: I'd indeed give America Guam, American Samoa (not Samoa the independent country), the Marshall Islands and Micronesia to the USA, but not much more than that... the South Pacific is much more associated with Australia and New Zealand.

Likely islands to put under Australian control would be the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Tonga and Vanuatu. We have defence agreements, we train most of their forces, give them a lot of aid, and occasionaly send police or troops to those countries to help stabilise them. Likewise, further into the Pacific, Tuvalu and Kiribati have no military except that provided by Australia or NZ, and they use our currency as well.

Maybe East Timor would also be Australian, given our prominent role in their independence and ongoing heavy involvement in attempting to stabilise the place.

I'd potentially even group PNG with Australia, after being a colonial protectorate of Australia, PNG only became independent in 1975 and we're still involved in aid and education and military training in PNG. Plus PNG and Timor Leste would give borders with Indonesia.

One caveat on this: relations with Fiji are very strained since the coup in 2006. Not sure how you'd represent that. Possibly they'd be a failed state or independent.

Also, don't forget France still has New Caledonia and French Polynesia (Tahiti) in the Pacific.

Finally, what's happening with New Zealand? They may be a candidate for neutrality, these days. Give New Zealand control of Samoa and the Cook Islands if you include them. There's also Tokelau and Niue, but they've got like 1000 people and no ports or anything like that.

ianinsane
May 18, 2008, 02:20 AM
Good thoughts on that!

sangeli
May 21, 2008, 10:57 PM
Suggestions:

Lebenon should also be a "failed state" as civil war seems probable.

Altough, both islam, Shia and Sunni should be different religions in the game due to how much conflict has been between them.

Maybe align the pro-russian Serbia with Russia. Also, Poland should definitely, 100%, be part of NATO and not EU. And technically, this is a 2008 mod so Albania and Croatia should not be part of NATO, because they join next year. So, if you are going to keep them part of NATO, with that rationale, Barak Obama should also be the US leader :)

Mr Historical
May 24, 2008, 01:56 PM
I mean ,france,the uk and germany are much more powerful politically than say burma,canada or taiwan-so maybe enlarge germanyto include eastern EU nations,france to include spain and italy and make turkey a 'secular middle eastern civ'.Albania +croatia dont really need to be mentioned at all,or maybe just as independants.Add taiwan +south koreato america,burma +sudan as failed states and we might have a balance-

Mr Historical
May 24, 2008, 01:58 PM
Permanent Neutrality - Switzerland (capital), Costa Rica, Liechtenstein Turkmenistan.
what about sweden

NikNaks
May 24, 2008, 01:59 PM
Sweden are EU members, aren't they?

Mr Historical
May 25, 2008, 06:43 AM
Yes,swedens part of the EU but is 'aggressively neutral with national service-more like switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Armed_Forces
'Sweden aims to have the option of remaining neutral in case of proximate war, and is therefore not a formal member of NATO or any other military alliance.'
but you can put them in if you want-im just being pedantic

NikNaks
May 25, 2008, 06:51 AM
I think we'll leave them where they are for now.

What's everyone's opinion on including UNASUR instead of the individual SA countries?

Mr Historical
May 25, 2008, 06:52 AM
ok
including UNASUR instead of the individual SA ?
good,but might make it a bit too powerful

SoI
May 26, 2008, 05:05 AM
I think that England could be united with Poland, Baltic States and etc becose they have similar proUS position, and the countries founders of the EU like France, Germany Italy and Spain could be easily merged into one.

In the begining both blocks should be be allied with US representing NATO but i think this alliance should be premanent only between US and English block.

Russia can have Serbia, Armenia and maybe Khazahstan

Islamic world should be certainly divided into two powers: shia and sunni.

Joe Harker
May 26, 2008, 05:45 AM
I think that England could be united with Poland,

Well since our entire construction/cleaning/Farming industry is made up of Poles and other eastern european citizens it does make a bit of sense.

I don't think the alliance should be "permant" for the UK only, partly because Brown has started to shy away from America and much of the British population don't like the thought of being American puppets. Sure we rely on them, but who in the western world doesn't?

(BTW it's Britain not England, you might annoy some Scotmen ;)
It's strangely quite common for foreigners, especially from the sub contient to call Britain, England and mean the same thing, there was a Scotland v Bangladesh match couple of years ago and some people thought it was the English B team! :D)

SoI
May 26, 2008, 06:05 AM
(BTW it's Britain not England, you might annoy some Scotmen
It's strangely quite common for foreigners, especially from the sub contient to call Britain, England and mean the same thing, there was a Scotland v Bangladesh match couple of years ago and some people thought it was the English B team! )

Yeah, I know, i know... my native language is always trying to creep in my English :crazyeye:
You see in Russian( and as far as I know also in French and Italian) we actually rarely call Britain Britain or UK(mostly in official diplomatic documents) and the word England is used both to denote the UK and the it's part.

P.S.My favorite team has already annoyed some scotmen by winning the UEFA cup:D



Maybe you are right, and western countries should be more bindуed by Western ideology(described in ideologies thread) than by alliances.

Also, i think that lugging of some smaller states by greater powers should be somehow represented, though i don't actually know how;)

Mr Historical
May 31, 2008, 06:20 AM
Well since our entire construction/cleaning/Farming industry is made up of Poles and other eastern european citizens it does make a bit of sense.
true,lets stick with nato

(BTW it's Britain not England, you might annoy some Scotmen ;)
It's strangely quite common for foreigners, especially from the sub contient to call Britain, England and mean the same thing, there was a Scotland v Bangladesh match couple of years ago and some people thought it was the English B team! :D)

ha, speaking as a scotsman ,I can say that you can call the uk england if you want-its not as if firaxis can tell the difference either:(

ianinsane
May 31, 2008, 07:43 AM
Lebenon should also be a "failed state" as civil war seems probable.

I presume Lebanon is too small too include at all...it will be probably be controlled by Syria or Israel

Maybe align the pro-russian Serbia with Russia. Also, Poland should definitely, 100%, be part of NATO and not EU. And technically, this is a 2008 mod so Albania and Croatia should not be part of NATO, because they join next year. So, if you are going to keep them part of NATO, with that rationale, Barak Obama should also be the US leader :)

I agree with Serbia.
I don't agree with Poland because of gameplay-issues. I think we should try to include into NATO civ only non-EU states and EU-states which are remote like UK :). Europe is small enough. We should try not to fragment EU on the continent for it would weaken its power in an unrealistic way.
Concerning Croatia and Albania (not sure if it is large enough at all...) I think letting them be part of NATO is a little blurring but nevertheless neglectable.

What's everyone's opinion on including UNASUR instead of the individual SA countries?

IMO: No way! :) In the first place the individual SA states, especially Venezuela and Brazil, are too much on their way to become significant global players. There is much potencial for conflict between individual SA states and non-SA states, like USA-Venezuela. Also there are conflicts between SA states like Venezuela and Colombia. And...didn't we say we don't want to have fictual superpowers?

Concerning UNASUR I'd prefer my suggestion of having several "Apostolic Palaces": One for each Cultural Ideology. The "Apostolic Palace" of "Latin American" could then be UNASUR. Although I'd prefer it to be Mercosur.

In the begining both blocks should be be allied with US representing NATO but i think this alliance should be premanent only between US and English block.

IMO Permanent Alliances in Civ produce something like Federations. None of the civs we have on our list has such a close tie with another one. It would be a model if we had an independent UK. Then I could imagine it having a permanent alliance with EU. Same if we had EU nation states seperate. For example, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and UK would have a permanent alliance representing the EU.
But in this case I say in the beginning there are no permanent alliances in our scenario. Of course we'd have defensive pacts where in reality are defensive pacts, too. So all NATO-states should have defensive pacts with each other (EU, NATO, USA, Canada). So should have USA and Taiwan as well as USA and South Korea...

Joe Harker
Jun 01, 2008, 02:26 PM
ha, speaking as a scotsman ,I can say that you can call the uk england if you want-its not as if firaxis can tell the difference either:(

I think their arguement would be that Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter) are techinally part of an English Empire, being that the throne of England and Scotland are held by the same monarch (of course you could make the arguement that it was a Scottish monarch that succeeded the English Throne, but there are ~50million of us and ~4-5million of you ;))

But i would much rather it being called the UK, or Britain preferably in this mod (unless you use NATO as a name) and in the actual game of Civ 4.

Mr Historical
Jun 03, 2008, 04:59 AM
Yup ,I agree

Dabur
Jun 03, 2008, 06:48 AM
hi ,

hmmm , maybe france should be on its own ?

have a nice day

Mr Historical
Jun 03, 2008, 07:05 AM
there are ~50million of us and ~4-5million of you ;))


But we've got the nukes!:bump::nuke::D

Joe Harker
Jun 03, 2008, 07:13 AM
But we've got the nukes!:bump::nuke::D


Theres nothing that really beats that :lol:, except that we control the trade of battered Mars Bars :mischief: [/End stereotypical joke about Scotland] :)

ijnavy
Jun 05, 2008, 07:26 AM
This is my opinion on the civs:
North America: United States of America - controls Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Panama, Diego Garcia (Indian ocean), Pacific Islands (Midway, Guam, Marshal Islands, Samoa, etc), Iraq, no Afghanistan. Canada; Mexico: Controls Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala.
South America: Venezuela - controls Carribean, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Suriname, Guyana, and French Guyana. Colombia: Controls Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. Brazil. Argentina: Controls Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay.
Europe: Western Europe, Balkans, and Russia. Instead of the EU, NATO, and Russia.

RedRalph
Jun 10, 2008, 08:50 AM
I think the above post, while not without flaw, is more realistic than the OP. the game would run so slowly as to be unplayable.

ijnavy
Jun 12, 2008, 02:13 PM
Why would the game be too slow? Is it because of the number of civs? I think that we can go up least up to 28 civs.

Please correct me if this has already been decided:
Africa: Nigeria, Congo, Egypt, South Africa, and Ethiopia.
Asia: Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, India, China, Indonesia, and Japan.
Australia/Polynesia: Austria, New Zealand, and ???Papua new Guinea???.

Religions (Lets make it 8 since we have more civs than usual): Catholic Christianity, Protestant, Sunni Islam, Shiite Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Judaism. Russia, parts of Balkans and Kazakhstan will be either Protestant or Catholic.

lamppost4
Jun 12, 2008, 08:14 PM
Why would the game be too slow? Is it because of the number of civs? I think that we can go up least up to 28 civs.

Please correct me if this has already been decided:
Africa: Nigeria, Congo, Egypt, South Africa, and Ethiopia.
Asia: Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, India, China, Indonesia, and Japan.
Australia/Polynesia: Austria, New Zealand, and ???Papua new Guinea???.

Religions (Lets make it 8 since we have more civs than usual): Catholic Christianity, Protestant, Sunni Islam, Shiite Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Judaism. Russia, parts of Balkans and Kazakhstan will be either Protestant or Catholic.

I am thinkin that you forgot Taiwan.

ijnavy
Jun 13, 2008, 12:40 AM
I don't see any point of adding Taiwan. They would have only one city (maybe 2). They do have a somewhat powerful military, but not even any nuclear weapons. They still have no chance of taking China, so they will remain with 1 or 2 cities the entire game.

Dabur
Jun 13, 2008, 01:08 AM
I don't see any point of adding Taiwan. They would have only one city (maybe 2). They do have a somewhat powerful military, but not even any nuclear weapons. They still have no chance of taking China, so they will remain with 1 or 2 cities the entire game.



:hmm: they could be a great base for the US of A , .....

even with just one city , so why not

ijnavy
Jun 13, 2008, 02:09 AM
That would not be right (the US would be too strong), I would just make Taiwan independent. If you want a US base in near the far east, use Okinawa. Are all the other civs lists good?

Dead Flag
Jun 15, 2008, 12:17 PM
I think Britain should be a separate civilisation. We've never considered ourselves to be European. Also, Israel might as well be considered part of the United States.

NikNaks
Jun 15, 2008, 12:44 PM
True, we don't. That's why they're part of the NATO civ.

Dead Flag
Jun 15, 2008, 08:13 PM
Yes, but I was referring to ijnavy's suggestion.

ijnavy
Jun 15, 2008, 10:20 PM
If we have Britan, then why not add Germany (just as strong)? If we have Germany, why not Italy, France, and Spain. If we divide Western Europe, then there are going to be too many civs. I don't think that NATO should be a civ, its just an organization.

I don't understand why Israel would be part of the US. It's a separate country, that is friendly with the US. And it has a strong military.

Joe Harker
Jun 16, 2008, 05:19 AM
If we have Britan, then why not add Germany (just as strong)? If we have Germany, why not Italy, France, and Spain. If we divide Western Europe, then there are going to be too many civs. I don't think that NATO should be a civ, its just an organization.

Because Germany and France and the rest of Western Europe, act as one a lot of the time, however Britain can on key issues, differ in its approach and attiude to the situation.

However an alternative to Britain being seperate, would be to have Britain join up with the Aussies and New Zealand as we still share many strong ties, plus our foregin policy has been quite similar and our miltary has always worked together in training and in combat and in the event of a major war it would be likely that British, Austrailan and New Zealand troops would be under a combined commonwealth command structure.

We also have similar in culture to them, arguably more than any country other than the USA. So if Britain had to be within another state, then it could be part of the commonwealth. It would still have a alliance with Europe, through NATO, just it wouldn't be a central part of the EU, which let's be honest we are not really. We don't have the euro and we have several opt outs in the various treaties. So out of all the nations in the EU, certainly the major ones, Britain is the most different, from culture to money policy and basically everything else.

ijnavy
Jun 16, 2008, 05:43 AM
:goodjob: Then lets make the UK its own country. Also, lets make it so a country controls only its own territory. So Russia does not control Eastern Europe and the UK does not control Australia (except if it is a region like western Europe).

I also purpose an Eastern Europe that includes, Poland, the Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Czech, Slovakia, and Austria.

That gives us a total of 29 civs, not too many to make the game slow.

Joe Harker
Jun 16, 2008, 06:11 AM
What are the nations you have currently? :)

ijnavy
Jun 16, 2008, 08:43 AM
28 civs
United States of America
Canada
Mexico
Colombia
Venezuela
Brazil
Argentina
Egypt
Nigeria
Democratic republic of the Congo
South Africa
Ethiopia
UK
Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Balkans
Russia
Turkey
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Kazakhstan
Iran
Pakistan
India
Indonesia
China
Japan
Australia

I just thought about it, and dropped New Zealand.

We might add these (from the first post)?
Permanent Neutrality - Switzerland (capital), Costa Rica, Liechtenstein Turkmenistan.
Independent African States - Angola (capital), Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Zimbabwe, Kenya.
African Union- all African countries that don't fall in to our "independent" or "barbarian" groups.
Failed States - Somalia, Eritrea, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea. There should also be strong hostile barbarian rebel cities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and western Sudan. Weaker barbarian groups elsewhere, maybe without cities, including in Columbia, Chechnya (Russia), Mexico, Algeria, Basque (EU) and Tibet (China).
Independent Nations - Papua New Guinea, Brunei, Singapore, Dominican republic, Peru, Chile, Vietnam

ianinsane
Jun 16, 2008, 04:45 PM
There's definately missing the Koreas and Taiwan. And I see no actual indication to have "western europe", "eastern europe" and "balkans" as a civ. I still stick with the first list.

ijnavy
Jun 16, 2008, 09:19 PM
Can you explain why we need a Korea and Taiwan? There is no EU or NATO civ. Do you want all of Europe to be one huge civ? We can try to divide Europe up into the most important civs, but I think that we would have too many.

ianinsane
Jun 17, 2008, 05:03 AM
Korea and Taiwan both are sizzling volcanoes. If one day we have a direct conflict between the two superpowers USA and China then it will be most probably because of one of these hot spots. North Korea is a nuclear power, member of the "Axis of Evil" and thus claimed to be one of the major threats to USA. Erasing Korea and Taiwan would mean to erase two of the three hot spots that could trigger a major war.
I neither want to have a single "European" civ and I am not happy at all about that NATO civ. I would prefer to have Europe divided into EU (with all actual members), Russia (including Belarus, Ukraine and Serbia), Turkey and a neutral civ (Switzerland, Iceland, Norway...). But since none of the suggested compromises was widely accepted (my one included) I still am with the first list.

Amogos
Jun 17, 2008, 10:25 AM
What do you mean by "permanent neutrality" because Switzerland’s military troops own guns in there homes so that they are prepared for an invasion. I think either take them off entirely or explain "neutral".

Arwon
Jun 17, 2008, 10:44 AM
Because Germany and France and the rest of Western Europe, act as one a lot of the time, however Britain can on key issues, differ in its approach and attiude to the situation.

However an alternative to Britain being seperate, would be to have Britain join up with the Aussies and New Zealand as we still share many strong ties, plus our foregin policy has been quite similar and our miltary has always worked together in training and in combat and in the event of a major war it would be likely that British, Austrailan and New Zealand troops would be under a combined commonwealth command structure.

We also have similar in culture to them, arguably more than any country other than the USA. So if Britain had to be within another state, then it could be part of the commonwealth. It would still have a alliance with Europe, through NATO, just it wouldn't be a central part of the EU, which let's be honest we are not really. We don't have the euro and we have several opt outs in the various treaties. So out of all the nations in the EU, certainly the major ones, Britain is the most different, from culture to money policy and basically everything else.

I don't think we've done the "combined commonwealth structure" thing since the disasters of World War 1.

ijnavy
Jun 17, 2008, 11:21 AM
Korea and Taiwan both are sizzling volcanoes. If one day we have a direct conflict between the two superpowers USA and China then it will be most probably because of one of these hot spots. North Korea is a nuclear power, member of the "Axis of Evil" and thus claimed to be one of the major threats to USA. Erasing Korea and Taiwan would mean to erase two of the three hot spots that could trigger a major war.
I neither want to have a single "European" civ and I am not happy at all about that NATO civ. I would prefer to have Europe divided into EU (with all actual members), Russia (including Belarus, Ukraine and Serbia), Turkey and a neutral civ (Switzerland, Iceland, Norway...). But since none of the suggested compromises was widely accepted (my one included) I still am with the first list.
Then lets reach a compromise. Lets not have more than 30 civs to make the game not too slow. We have 28 no. Since people want to add both koreas and Taiwan, lets decide what civ we want to take away so we have exactly 30. My list is in post 46.
Any other problems with my list?

ijnavy
Jun 17, 2008, 11:28 AM
I neither want to have a single "European" civ and I am not happy at all about that NATO civ. I would prefer to have Europe divided into EU (with all actual members), Russia (including Belarus, Ukraine and Serbia), Turkey and a neutral civ (Switzerland, Iceland, Norway...). But since none of the suggested compromises was widely accepted (my one included) I still am with the first list.

The problem would be that the EU would be too strong. Russia should still control its own territory and no more or it will be too strong. How about we take all of the Balkans and make it a civ, since most of the Balkans are not EU. Also many people want the UK be a separate civ. The EU would still be too strong. Then we would have the EU (without the Balkans and UK), Balkans, UK, and Russia in Europe. Instead of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, UK, Balkans, and Russia. Then we could add the 2 koreas and Taiwan to make exactly 30.

Joe Harker
Jun 17, 2008, 12:43 PM
I don't think we've done the "combined commonwealth structure" thing since the disasters of World War 1.

North Africa and Italy, as well as in India during WW2, and the Korean War (the last major conventional war involing several commonwealth forces), and several special operations in South East asia during the 50s, our miltary still train with Australian armed forces, particulary the navy.

ijnavy
Jun 18, 2008, 07:42 AM
Does everyone agree on everything except Europe:
United States of America
Canada
Mexico
Colombia
Venezuela
Brazil
Argentina
Egypt
Nigeria
Democratic republic of the Congo
South Africa
Ethiopia
Russia
Turkey
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Kazakhstan
Iran
Pakistan
India
Indonesia
China
Japan
Australia
Taiwan
North Korea
South Korea

That makes 27 civs.

Joe Harker
Jun 18, 2008, 09:58 AM
The problem would be that the EU would be too strong. Russia should still control its own territory and no more or it will be too strong. How about we take all of the Balkans and make it a civ, since most of the Balkans are not EU. Also many people want the UK be a separate civ. The EU would still be too strong. Then we would have the EU (without the Balkans and UK), Balkans, UK, and Russia in Europe. Instead of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, UK, Balkans, and Russia. Then we could add the 2 koreas and Taiwan to make exactly 30.

That sounds good, although don't forget Turkey.

For neutral civs like Norway and Swizterland i would lump them with the EU as they have several treaties with the EU that make them almost a part of the european trading bloc, but not quite fully in.

ijnavy
Jun 18, 2008, 10:04 AM
Does everyone agree on everything except Europe:
United States of America
Canada
Mexico
Colombia
Venezuela
Brazil
Argentina
Egypt
Nigeria
Democratic republic of the Congo
South Africa
Ethiopia
Russia
Turkey
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Kazakhstan
Iran
Pakistan
India
Indonesia
China
Japan
Australia
Taiwan
North Korea
South Korea

That makes 27 civs.

So, how does everyone else think about this list + Eu (All EU except UK and Balkans/Eastern Europe), UK, and Balkans/Eastern Europe.

Most of the Balkans and Eastern Europe are not in the EU. Some people want the UK to be its own civ.

30 civs altogether.

ijnavy
Jun 18, 2008, 10:08 AM
Does everyone agree on everything except Europe:
United States of America
Canada
Mexico
Colombia
Venezuela
Brazil
Argentina
Egypt
Nigeria
Democratic republic of the Congo
South Africa
Ethiopia
Russia
Turkey
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Kazakhstan
Iran
Pakistan
India
Indonesia
China
Japan
Australia
Taiwan
North Korea
South Korea

That makes 27 civs.

So, how does everyone else think about this list + Eu (All Europe except UK and Balkans/Eastern Europe), UK, and Balkans/Eastern Europe.

Most of the Balkans and Eastern Europe are not in the EU so I decided to make them one civ. Some people want the UK to be its own civ.

30 civs altogether.

ianinsane
Jun 19, 2008, 01:49 AM
I'd like to add Palestine.
And I still like the idea of collecting other nation states under neutral and barbarian civs like "Permanent Neutrality", "Independent African States", "African Union", "Failed States" and "Independent Nation". To divide that huge African continent between 5 civs would probably make some of them too powerful.

And something basic...as other people have pointed out I also wouldn't mind to be able to play only 10 turns per day because there are so many civs - instead of renouncing complexity. We don't have to desperately try to save on civs since I guess there will be another version of this mod with radically less civs and more superpowers. And as I expect versions 2.0 or 3.0 of this mod to be, the time spent playing one turn will be long enough, so longer waiting times between the turns won't be such a problem.

And once again I strongly disagree with the idea of a "Balkans" civ. Up to this point we managed it, not to "invent" any civs. Besides of Africa. But even there the "Independent African Nations", "Failed States" and "African Union" civs won't be en bloc but scattered to represent the fragmentation of this continent.
A "Balkan" civ would unite the only region in Europe that is everything but united. The only European wars of the last 50 years took place in or between states of the Balkans. The main cultural and political borders go right through the Balkans. After all this is the region where the term "Balkanization" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization) comes from. To unite these states into one civ would mean to turn reality upside down.

If you are concerned of Russia and the EU becoming to powerful if the Balkans is shared between them I'd suggest to share it between Russia (Belarus, Serbia), EU (Croatia) and "Independent States" (Ukraine) and let Belarus, Serbia and Croatia have a development malus like underdevelopment and too much :mad:, :yuck:...

Joe Harker
Jun 19, 2008, 09:41 AM
To divide that huge African continent between 5 civs would probably make some of them too powerful.

Yes, but you could make the land extremely poor (which for sub saharan africa is already true) so that their growth and power is limited.

ianinsane
Jun 19, 2008, 11:49 AM
Yes, but you could make the land extremely poor (which for sub saharan africa is already true) so that their growth and power is limited.

No, sub saharan africa (outside the sahel) is one of the most fertile regions in the world and extremely high in resources. It is underdeveloped but does not have poor land.

terrybozz
Jun 20, 2008, 03:40 PM
Hi, i am wondering when will this mod be out and will it work with the 3.13 patch. ????????

Joe Harker
Jun 20, 2008, 04:04 PM
^^^ It's only started just a while back, so it will be awhile, it will most likely work with only the 3.17 (the new patch) although the actual makers of the mod can correct me if i am wrong.

RegentBob
Jun 20, 2008, 05:45 PM
What would happen if the European Union gets its own civ with 1 to 3 centralized cities in Europe (i.e. Brussels, Luxembourg, Vienna maybe). Then add the major civ's that belong to the EU (Germany, France, UK, etc.) and make them Vassals to the EU.

Cultural and attitude bonuses might help to hold the Union together after the start of the game.

I believe this would simulate the actual working of the EU in that:
the Open Borders would allow for trade routes;
the separate militaries would be on the same side, but without unified command (apologies to NATO);
the individual civ's could split from the Union (i.e. Ireland).

I don't know how the game rules and AI would react, but I think it would be interesting to test it out.

ijnavy
Jun 23, 2008, 04:47 PM
Wouldn't the vassals of the EU declare independence?

The EU is just an organization, not a civilization. They cannot be a civ.
Possible European civs: Spain, France, UK, Germany, Italy, Poland, Serbia, and Greece. Choose 4 so there are 30 civs.
Russia has already been added.

North Korea should be dropped because they would have only 2 cities and could only use nuclear weapons if they get rights in UN election (no one will vote for them), or the whole world will declare war on it.

RegentBob
Jun 23, 2008, 08:08 PM
Wouldn't the vassals of the EU declare independence?


They might not if there were attitude bonuses on both sides, a strong EU headstart in culture, and if none of the Vassals were strong enough to stand alone.

The EU is not a civ, but to make this work it would have to be treated as one. Therefore, Brussels (Belgium) and maybe one or two other cities would represent the core of the European Union. When you are trying to eliminate all but ~30 civ's in 2008, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Austria are not likely to make your top 30.

Then give each Vassal a strong attitude bonus toward the EU. Stretch it's economy a little thin. The individual civ's of the EU are not powerhouses by themselves--they are strong together. Also, if the AI is looking for mutual defense from a friend, maybe it will stick around longer.

Next, make sure the EU cities are completely developed and economically strong. Give the EU some attitude bonuses toward it's Vassals, and a sizeable headstart in culture. In time, cities may begin to culture-flip to the EU.

Finally, I do not understand how they AI works well enough to know if placement of Corporation HQ's and resources could also be used to hold the arrangement together.

Overall, it would be a way of simulating the EU as it works currently: a block of civ's combined to ensure mutual trade routes and mutual defense, and hopefully technology trading. Even the EU's military force can be explained in the European Security and Defence Policy.

Ideally at some point, through superior culture scores, the EU would absorb most of the cities leaving only the member civs' capitols. The alternatives would be a sort of civil war with the EU and it's Vassals retaking a member civ by force, or perhaps a member civ becoming strong enough to take over control from the EU. Besides those outcomes, there's always the obvious possibility that the EU could be picked apart by Russia, China, the USA, or some other civ.

ijnavy
Jun 23, 2008, 08:45 PM
Great idea RegentBob.

I just don't understand why we need an EU. Why can't we just do what we did with all the other continents by making the strongest civs and the others independent or barbarian?

RegentBob
Jun 24, 2008, 09:55 PM
Because I have a character flaw that causes me to try to make things more complicated and difficult than they need to be. I'm sure the 2008 Mod will be great regardless, it was just an idea that I needed to get out of my system.

RedRalph
Jun 25, 2008, 03:08 AM
Great idea RegentBob.

I just don't understand why we need an EU. Why can't we just do what we did with all the other continents by making the strongest civs and the others independent or barbarian?

I think that idea is a lot better in theory, but were going to be looking at a very slow game if we implement that

ijnavy
Jun 25, 2008, 07:56 AM
I don't think that it will be too slow.
1205 AD on GEM (a historical scenario on a GEM map with 39 civs) works fine. If we limit ourselves to 30 civs on rhye's map it should be playable, even if it's in the modern age.

ijnavy
Jun 25, 2008, 08:44 PM
So, what is the final decision on Europe?
For all the unplayable countries, they will be either independent or barbarian.

Mr Historical
Jun 27, 2008, 04:56 AM
I don't think we've done the "combined commonwealth structure" thing since the disasters of World War 1.
Korean war anyone?;)

ijnavy
Jun 27, 2008, 08:22 AM
Still, if there is a U.K. civ, they should still only control England, Wales, Scotland, and some small islands. Although the Queen of England is the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and Saint Kitts and Nevis; the UK does not control these countries, they are completely separate countries.

Lord Civius
Jun 27, 2008, 03:25 PM
I like the idea of an EU Civ. Though I would limit it to the western euro countries and not include the UK, Spain, France and Germany have to be their own nations. The rest of the EU nations can be cities in the EU Civ.

I like how the middle East is broken down. Iran (Shiite Muslims), Saudi Arabia (Sunni Muslims) and Israel. Iraq and Afganistan could be included as American Cities (in revolt) strictly from a military base standpoint. The culture of Iran trying to swallow them up before the revolt is under control. Don't know if this is workable but could add some realism.

ijnavy
Jun 27, 2008, 04:13 PM
That would leave the EU with only Italy, Scandinavia, and parts of Eastern Europe. The countries that you listed is its core territory. The EU is not a civilization, it's an organization.

I'm against making Iraq and Afghanistan US bases. If we must, how about we put independents near Mosul, Baghdad, and Kabul and make it so in some games the US gets lucky and they can defend the cities. In some games, the US gets unlucky and the independents win the battle.

Lord Civius
Jun 27, 2008, 11:15 PM
Yeah I didn't think the US base proposal would fly :) . An independent Iraq between Iran and Saudi Arabia should suffice. Israel should be small like they are but with Nukes to even the odds.

That would leave the EU with only Italy, Scandinavia, and parts of Eastern Europe. The countries that you listed is its core territory. The EU is not a civilization, it's an organization.

Then lets do away with the EU and NATO. It is not a civ as you say.

ianinsane
Jun 28, 2008, 03:57 AM
The EU might be not a civ but of all international organisations it is the one that comes closest to a state. There is a EU government with executive rights, a the European Court of Justice as the highest court in the EU, a EU parliament with legislative rights, the agreement that EU law breaks national law, a single currency, the process of establishing a EU army, common embassies in foreign countries, the ongoing process of consorting national laws in all branches, no state borders, a common border police. In short, the EU has reached a level of national integration that makes it come very close to a national state/federal state/civ. Thus, here we could save on civs.

I vote in favour of letting control the US Iraq and Afghanistan. What else is it doing now? Of course the cities must be revolting and there must be strong groups of Barbarians, but it must be still under US control.

ijnavy
Jun 28, 2008, 06:15 AM
If you want to cut down on civs, take away North Korea since it just dismantled its nuclear project. That would would make the total number of civs without counting Europe- 26 (Russia is already there). You can make 4 European civs, no need to save on civs.

ianinsane
Jun 28, 2008, 08:37 AM
Wait, wait...you believe that just because Kim Yong-il blew up a little cooling tower for the media that he turned into a flower child? No way. He might just have appeased the international public for the moment...but this story about Korea is far from over. It is going on for 60 years now and the two opposite blocs that started it are on the go to become the opposite superpowers of the near future: USA and China. So this will still keep us busy for a long time. After all they still have the bomb.

And we definately must include Palestine. We must not leave out the main hotspots in the world, even if they are small!!

So, in doubt, I still stick with the first list. (But without the NATO civ) :)

ijnavy
Jun 28, 2008, 09:24 AM
Yes, I do believe that North Korea will dismantle all of its nuclear weapons. That was the main and largest cooling tower.

Then lets keep the list on the first page, except
Revisions first list:
Change Sudan to Ethiopia?
Add another African civ, Congo?
Change Philippines to Turkey.
Maybe change Myanmar to another Indochinese civ.
Maybe add New Zealand
Lets have the EU


30 civs altogether

Joe Harker
Jun 28, 2008, 09:53 AM
Why not make North Korea part of China, and South Korea part of Japan

On the EU, i think it is too much to lump the whole of Europe into one civ, a it simply would be too powerful, and wouldn't at all simulate the complex goings on within it.

My idea would be to have Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Greece. Have Germany stretch over into eastern europe and Greece north into the Balkans

BTW Are you using Rhye's map? Because the play times on that map with lots of civs is very respectable considering the size of the map and in RTW, which uses Rhye's map as well, despite having a huge number of civs and units, copes extremely well, despite all the units, I really doubt that having ~35 civs would have too much of an effect on gameplay. Plus Rhye's map does a good job of making Europe bigger for more civs.

ianinsane
Jun 28, 2008, 09:56 AM
Hmmm...I'd count Sudan to the world's hot spots. Why include boring Ethiopia?
Instead of adding Congo and New Zealand I'd suggest the two Barbarian civs "Failed States" (aggressive) and "Neutral states" (peaceful)

Philippines -> Turkey is ok
I'd rather keep Myanmar but if it is changed it should probably Thailand

ijnavy
Jun 28, 2008, 12:06 PM
I think that we should do it on rhye's map.
I'm for not having any Korea.
That's exactly what I want. There should not be more than 30 civs, so drop both koreas, Palestine, and the EU. Then we can add 4 more European civs (Russia is already in).
Why do we need Failed states and neutral states? Make them all barbs or independents.

Lord Civius
Jun 28, 2008, 01:09 PM
I think that we should do it on rhye's map.
I'm for not having any Korea.
That's exactly what I want. There should not be more than 30 civs, so drop both koreas, Palestine, and the EU. Then we can add 4 more European civs (Russia is already in).
Why do we need Failed states and neutral states? Make them all barbs or independents.

So N Korean land goes to China and S Korea to Japan? I agree with dropping Palestine though I think they could possibly be Barb State. I am definately on the no EU bandwagon, I can't see a world without France, Germany or Italy. Possibly a permanent alliance between western europe countries?

ianinsane
Jun 28, 2008, 02:25 PM
Let's look at this from this way: What spice would add Germany, Italy and Greece to this mod? None.
The spice are the hotspots. It's the Koreas, Taiwan, Palestine, Pakistan, Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan. Without this spice you can't cook a delicious meal. These are the locations where conflicts are (political, diplomatic, social and military). And not in the middle of Europe.

Joe Harker
Jun 28, 2008, 04:08 PM
Let's look at this from this way: What spice would add Germany, Italy and Greece to this mod?

Well for a start, a complex europe that could work together or spilt apart,

The EU in RL could spilt as a result of this current crisis due to the Lisbon treaty because of the slow stragiht of affairs, and the inaction of it at present.

Lord Civius
Jun 28, 2008, 05:28 PM
Let's look at this from this way: What spice would add Germany, Italy and Greece to this mod? None.
The spice are the hotspots. It's the Koreas, Taiwan, Palestine, Pakistan, Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan. Without this spice you can't cook a delicious meal. These are the locations where conflicts are (political, diplomatic, social and military). And not in the middle of Europe.

A defensive pact between US and Taiwan is a good idea. Same could go for S Korea. A strong alliance between China and N. Korea would ensure some conflict IMO. Palestine seems pointless in a Civ atmosphere unless they were a Barb state with UU invisible suicide bomber. Pakistan and India are a must being nuclear powers sharing a border with an enemy. Colombia could be a strong ally with US sharing a border with an aggressive Venezuela. Iraq should be an Independent State though my idea of it being a US base (City) in revolt would add a sense of realism. Afganistan should definately be a Barb state if it is added. I don't have much of an opinion either way on Sudan.

We gotta keep in mind that the human rights of the real world do not exist in Civ. The AI aren't going to care about such things.

ianinsane
Jun 29, 2008, 06:59 AM
Well for a start, a complex europe that could work together or spilt apart,

The EU in RL could spilt as a result of this current crisis due to the Lisbon treaty because of the slow stragiht of affairs, and the inaction of it at present.

OK, I see your point and I agree, that this indeed would add spice. But in order for having the possibility for the EU to split apart you would still need an EU at game start. So for this the suggestion of Regent Bob would be perfect. You could have an EU civ that controls most of Europe (Germany, France, Spain, Eastern Europe, Sweden, Finland, Greece...) and two more civs which are in reality most likely to split off. I suggest Britain (incl. Ireland) and Italy. These are vassals of EU with very good relations.

A defensive pact between US and Taiwan is a good idea. Same could go for S Korea. A strong alliance between China and N. Korea would ensure some conflict IMO.

Indeed. Very good toughts!

Palestine seems pointless in a Civ atmosphere unless they were a Barb state with UU invisible suicide bomber.

Pointless because too small? I'd love to give it a try on a map. Should be struggling to fight Israel's cultural borders from overtaking their city. I'd suggest an own civ with UU invisible suicide bomber.

Iraq should be an Independent State though my idea of it being a US base (City) in revolt would add a sense of realism.

Hmmm...IMO Iraq is everything but an Independent State. If the US will invade Iran it will happen (among others) from Iraq. In order to achieve this you would need having all Independent States an Open Borders agreement with the US which would cause realism problems in other part of the world. As you say the most realistic and thus best solution would be to have the US control Iraq. Same for Afghanistan IMO, for the same reasons.

We gotta keep in mind that the human rights of the real world do not exist in Civ. The AI aren't going to care about such things.

This is a tough subject...we might not have human rights. But we have Civics which were agreed on should have a more severe impact on international relations. And we have Cultural Ideologies. Both combined should cause a good representation of the diplomatic mechanics that are initiated by the treatment of human rights in single countries.

Lord Civius
Jul 01, 2008, 12:39 PM
Pointless because too small? I'd love to give it a try on a map. Should be struggling to fight Israel's cultural borders from overtaking their city. I'd suggest an own civ with UU invisible suicide bomber.

Regardless of if we use Palestine or not which I agree it is just too small I think we can come up with a terrorist unit/suicide bomber unit. Maybe in the form of an event. There could be a chance of it being homegrown or from another civ. Something to think about.

Hmmm...IMO Iraq is everything but an Independent State. If the US will invade Iran it will happen (among others) from Iraq. In order to achieve this you would need having all Independent States an Open Borders agreement with the US which would cause realism problems in other part of the world. As you say the most realistic and thus best solution would be to have the US control Iraq. Same for Afghanistan IMO, for the same reasons.

Well I agree a Nation can't truly be independent until they can secure and defend themselves. It would be a far cry to think the transition could be completed by the end of 08. On the other hand they have a representative gov't so most of the non-security issues are decidied by the Iraqi Gov't. This sort of leaves us in a pickle and either way )Independant State or US city base) it would neither be wrong or right :confused: . There are however some cities that the security has been handed over to the Iraqi Defense. Possibly some cities can be part of an Iraq Civ while a few cities can be US controlled with low culture and high military presence. This way the US Civ could hand over the cities to Iraq or launch an invasion on Iran. I haven't quite thought this through all the waybut it would leave a little control to the person playing the US Civ and Iraq Civs. Same could go with Afganistan.

This is a tough subject...we might not have human rights. But we have Civics which were agreed on should have a more severe impact on international relations. And we have Cultural Ideologies. Both combined should cause a good representation of the diplomatic mechanics that are initiated by the treatment of human rights in single countries.

But topics like Israeli/Palestani conflict couldn't really exist in the game as they do in RL. Hamas could not launch rocket attacks into Israeli cities or conduct a suicide bobming mission without a DOW. Same thing the Israelis could not go into the Palestinian regions to hunt down Hamas terrorists and take out their strongholds. We would need to rework the whole mechanics of the game to deal with a country fighting terrorism. This is what I meant by human rights, in the game if someone attacks you it is war and not politics.

Mr Historical
Jul 01, 2008, 01:59 PM
What would happen if the European Union gets its own civ with 1 to 3 centralized cities in Europe (i.e. Brussels, Luxembourg, Vienna maybe). Then add the major civ's that belong to the EU (Germany, France, UK, etc.) and make them Vassals to the EU.

Cultural and attitude bonuses might help to hold the Union together after the start of the game.

I believe this would simulate the actual working of the EU in that:
the Open Borders would allow for trade routes;
the separate militaries would be on the same side, but without unified command (apologies to NATO);
the individual civ's could split from the Union (i.e. Ireland).

I don't know how the game rules and AI would react, but I think it would be interesting to test it out.

This gets my vote.
:goodjob:

Mr Historical
Jul 01, 2008, 02:04 PM
Why dont we have an event something like 'drones' in SMAC .
The more libraries ,schools,non-state religion(among others) a city has,the more likely it produces a 'protester' these can work a bit like angry citizens,but if there is enough of them can cause civ-wide ANARCHY!(or something).However,if you are running a 'bad'civic,you can crack down on them.Itll bring sanctions,relatons hits and possible war.
This is Probably impossible.

Mr Historical
Jul 10, 2008, 03:19 PM
'South Korea part of Japan'
South Korea part of US helps give greater freedom to negociate for japan

ijnavy
Jul 10, 2008, 04:36 PM
We can't give the US all of this territory. They already are the 3rd largest country. Giving them Iraq and Afghanistan (they don't control these countries) makes them even more powerful. I don't think that giving them south Korea for a greater freedom to negotiate for japan is a good idea.
Should we give them the Czech republic since they have a missile defense there?
Or southern Japan since they have a military base at Okinawa?

Lord Civius
Jul 11, 2008, 12:35 AM
We can't give the US all of this territory. They already are the 3rd largest country. Giving them Iraq and Afghanistan (they don't control these countries) makes them even more powerful. I don't think that giving them south Korea for a greater freedom to negotiate for japan is a good idea.
Should we give them the Czech republic since they have a missile defense there?
Or southern Japan since they have a military base at Okinawa?

Good point but is there a way to reflect the reality of the US military presence worldwide? Strategically this would give the US a big advantage but would be realistic. Seems Civilization is not equipped to handle a country having bases and airfields abroad. Would it be possible to create a new improvement that grants a civ a fort or airfield in an allies territory? Possibly charging the civ gold per turn. It should also give the host civ the option to revoke the privelage.

ijnavy
Jul 11, 2008, 08:37 AM
I know a modcomp that gives culture to forts. I don't think that it is realistic since an army base can not flip any cities. It should be just one tile, but cannot be flipped. I think that it should produce units and have maintenance half the amount as cities do. You should be able to give one tile to a civ. They get a fort built there and you get some gold. You can also give a civ a 2 by 2 tile fort in which case you get a +1 diplomatic bonus with the civ. This would simulate many military bases without making them cities.

I think that this would be very hard to mod, but it's an idea.

hevehoc
Jul 11, 2008, 12:41 PM
and a very good idea too :D

Séamas
Jul 12, 2008, 08:56 AM
This looks like a great mod, but why are some of you suggesting Ireland split from the EU? That isn't going to happen...

If you remove the UK, France, and Germany from the EU, you're left with states that normally pursue neutrality, thus making the whole thing even more complicated, as you have states likely to pursue militaristic policies tied to a civ that won't do so. Not to mention that several EU states that would in real life pursue complete neutrality at all costs.

Lord Civius
Jul 14, 2008, 09:17 AM
I know a modcomp that gives culture to forts. I don't think that it is realistic since an army base can not flip any cities. It should be just one tile, but cannot be flipped. I think that it should produce units and have maintenance half the amount as cities do. You should be able to give one tile to a civ. They get a fort built there and you get some gold. You can also give a civ a 2 by 2 tile fort in which case you get a +1 diplomatic bonus with the civ. This would simulate many military bases without making them cities.

I think that this would be very hard to mod, but it's an idea.


That is a great idea but not quite what I had in mind. A player could grant or lease an ally a tile in their territory. The ally who now owns the tile (his color now fills the tile) could send workers to improve the tile with a military improvement. Unit support costs apply.
"Fort" (Army base)- would be no different than a normal fort you would build in your own territory.
"Airfield" (Airforce base)- Take-off and land aircraft, perform all air missions, just like over a city or aircraft carrier.
"Naval Station" (Navy base)- Coastal tiles only. Ships can dock in the tile, just like if there was a city there and heal 25% faster.
Just like any improvement they can be destroyed by enemy attacks like pillaging and bombardment. The allies should have to sign some sort of treaty that would require 10 turn notice before cancelling open borders. Like a peace treaty requires 10 turns before DOW. I think they should have a maintenance cost but no producing units.

hevehoc
Jul 16, 2008, 12:44 PM
That is a great idea but not quite what I had in mind. A player could grant or lease an ally a tile in their territory. The ally who now owns the tile (his color now fills the tile) could send workers to improve the tile with a military improvement. Unit support costs apply.
"Fort" (Army base)- would be no different than a normal fort you would build in your own territory.
"Airfield" (Airforce base)- Take-off and land aircraft, perform all air missions, just like over a city or aircraft carrier.
"Naval Station" (Navy base)- Coastal tiles only. Ships can dock in the tile, just like if there was a city there and heal 25% faster.
Just like any improvement they can be destroyed by enemy attacks like pillaging and bombardment. The allies should have to sign some sort of treaty that would require 10 turn notice before cancelling open borders. Like a peace treaty requires 10 turns before DOW. I think they should have a maintenance cost but no producing units.

also you should be able to airlift to at least airfield.

Mr Historical
Jul 20, 2008, 02:32 PM
We should include american/french/british bases round the the world -So if the europeans get bolshy,america can just invade!;)

ewu.7waker
Jul 26, 2008, 01:38 PM
dont we think that Africa is being considered in too much of a "barbaric" and "failed" way?

NikNaks
Jul 27, 2008, 01:15 AM
Well it is, in part. Those states that are in civil war (eg Sudan) will be represented as such. While on that subject, as I'm going to use Dom Pedro's Conqueror's Delight (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=281306) mod as a base for our SDK, I was thinking that we could use the new "Tribes" feature he's introducing to portray the two factions in the Sudanese civil war (African and Arabian). You can assign them art-styles, so it'll look realistic, and I hope they can be made more likely to attack each other than those around them (I've posted a question in the thread).

Once one side wins, using the Revolutions mod (I'll try and get that to be included at some point) I'll allow them to settle down as their own country (Sudan) and it will take the ethnicity of the Conqueror.

Thoughts?

ewu.7waker
Jul 27, 2008, 04:21 PM
daunting task, but if it can be done, go ahead

NikNaks
Jul 28, 2008, 04:47 AM
Well, if you look at the roadmap, this would come under "Complicated Features", so it's a long way off. But it's an idea, anyway.

Gooblah
Aug 04, 2008, 01:05 PM
Note: This list assumes the integration of ideas proposed by me and NikNaks involving the addition to the Foreign Advisor of an alliance system.
1. United States of America – allied to Nato
2. Canada – allied to Nato
3. Mexico
4. People's Republic of China
5. Democratic People's Republic of Korea
6. Russian Federation (controls all the –stans)
7. Israel
8. Myanmar
9. Egypt
10. Iran
11. Syria
12. Republic of Korea
13. Nigeria – Allied to AU
14. Pakistan
15. India
16. Venezuela
17. Colombia
18. Brazil
19. Argentina
20. Myanmar
21. Japan
22. Australia- allied to Nato
23. Philippines
24. Republic of Indonesia
25. Saudi Arabia
26. South Africa – allied to AU
27. Taiwan
28. European Union –allied to Nato?
29. African Union
30. Failed States – Minor Civ
31. ASEAN
32. Iraq-Vassal of USA
33. Afghanistan-vassal of USA
34. Greater Carribean/Central America
35. United Kingdom – allied to EU, Nato

NikNaks
Aug 04, 2008, 01:16 PM
I think there might be more Euro nations split off from the civ itself. Not all of them, but a lot.

Gooblah
Aug 07, 2008, 02:00 PM
I still think we should keep the number of Civilizations below 36. What nations do you propose splitting off from the EU?

I think there is enough tile space for an independent Serbia.

ijnavy
Aug 07, 2008, 02:45 PM
Russia should not control any territory except the county itself. They are now independent countries.

I still think that there should not be any Palestine, North Korea, Syria instead of Turkey, no Myanmar, Philippines, Taiwan, or Afghanistan.

hevehoc
Aug 07, 2008, 03:35 PM
Russia should not control any territory except the county itself. They are now independent countries.

I still think that there should not be any Palestine, North Korea, Syria instead of Turkey, no Myanmar, Philippines, Taiwan, or Afghanistan.

1. It is a good idea that Russia should not control any territory besides the country but we need to keep the number of civilizations down, maybe we can find a way to fix that.

2. i think that the palestine would be important to show the diplomatic differences between them, Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Syria. about Myanmar and the phillipines is too important to show their independency. Taiwan is important to show that it is a great difference between former nationalist china and communist china. About Afghanistan i think that the Taliban countries should be in one singel union.

And i also thought of Hongkong which is a part of china but is still capitalistic (right word?), how shall we do with that?

Joe Harker
Aug 07, 2008, 03:45 PM
I think Palastine should be represented by Eygpt (at least Gaza). Having said that the map will probably not be detailed enough to allow a palestine and Israel to exist.

I am also tempted to either have the USA or Japan rule Taiwan as if China invaded it in RL it would most likely involve a responce from either of those countries.

And i also thought of Hongkong which is a part of china but is still capitalistic (right word?), how shall we do with that?

Consider it part of China, no need to make things harder over something that will add little to the mod.

ijnavy
Aug 07, 2008, 04:58 PM
Palestine is too small, they are independent. I don't see the importance of Afghanistan (the country does not exist, it is under military rule of the US), Philippines and Myanmar (very weak countries), and North Korea which will probably not complete their nuclear project.

JEELEN
Aug 07, 2008, 11:30 PM
i think that the Taliban countries should be in one singel union

There are no Taliban countries, only Taliban-controlled regions in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Palestine is too small, they are independent. I don't see the importance of Afghanistan (the country does not exist, it is under military rule of the US), Philippines and Myanmar (very weak countries), and North Korea which will probably not complete their nuclear project.

Atlantis does not exist, Afghanistan does (just check any map); whoever controls the nation is irrelevant. What are weak countries anyway? There are already failed states in the list (which might fit Palestine in. although it hardly yet exists - as does Kurdistan). The Philippines count more inhabitants than Iran and are economically important. North Korea is politically important since 1945. (All this info can be found in any good atlas or just by googling.)

Ceterum censeo the Russian Federation nor the US should control non-Federation or non-US countries (unless as vassals).;)

Gooblah
Aug 08, 2008, 08:18 AM
I edited my Civ List, see above.

As for Palestine: Just implement them as Barbarians wielding modern-day weapons. Or something like that. Or control Palestine with random events?

Suicide Bombing

Requirments; Israeli Civilization, etc, etc

-1 Population, +5 :mad:,

Can be prevented by an Israeli Unique Unit: Border Guard. Each Border Guard in a city prevents the the ocurrence of the event by 10%, until the odds reach 5%.

ijnavy
Aug 08, 2008, 10:00 AM
Can you please change Syria to Turkey which I think is more important. As much as I don't like the EU civ, I really don't think that there should be a NATO civ more since it is less of a civilization than a union of many. Also, you have 2 Myanmars (I don't think that there should be any, but change one to South Africa).

NikNaks
Aug 08, 2008, 01:20 PM
There is no NATO civ on that list. You must be seeing things ;)

Palestine as events works well.

So, replace Syria with Turkey, remove the Phillipines, both the Myanmars and Taiwan, perhaps, and add France, Germany, Italy and Spain (controls Portugal).

Does that work?

JEELEN
Aug 08, 2008, 01:24 PM
It'll work, but it's way to Eurocentric, IMO. Me thinks the various alliances, treaties and what have you of the world of today should be represented somehow. European (i.e. EU) foreign policy, economic and customs and other judicial policies follow a certain consensus, generally speaking. (There are ofcourse exceptions: the Suez crisis, the Falklands War, the invasion of Iraq...)

Any country that isn't individually represented, should at least be part of a civ-team (like the EU in Europe). If individual European countries are represented, this should be limited to GB, France and - perhaps - Germany. Italy and Spain's power - actually: restoration of power - is for a large part a result of their joining the EU, which grants them huge subsidies.

BTW, glad to hear Palestine is included as an event.

NikNaks
Aug 08, 2008, 01:25 PM
Well the current list only has the UK and the EU...

ijnavy
Aug 08, 2008, 01:35 PM
Europe:
There are 35 civs. Take away Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines, Myanmar, and EU. Add Spain, France, Germany, (Italy or Sweden), (Poland or Serbia). Russia and England are already there. There are 7 out of 35 European civs which make it not too Eurocentric.

JEELEN
Aug 08, 2008, 02:36 PM
I guess in the end it's a matter of opinion. I don't consider Spain, Italy, Poland, Sweden or Serbia players on the world's stage. (But then: why is Myanmar on the list? I suggest replacing it with Ukraine).

And it's fine to say "take away Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines, etc...", but what will you have them replaced with? Failed states? Because they aren't - yet. (The Philippines are in ASEAN, BTW, if you want to loose 'em.)

Basically, I'm fine with the list as is. But I don't see why the mod can't have different map or scenario versions. So if ijnavy wants to do it his way, why not? I don't mind.;)

ijnavy
Aug 08, 2008, 03:03 PM
We could just do different maps. One would have the EU, the other would not. One would have Iraq, Afghanistan, and Myanmar. The other would have African nations. etc.
We could do 2-3 maps like that.
I was just looking for a project to get involved in, I don't really mind, but I think that this is a good idea or this mod will never get done.

Amogos
Aug 09, 2008, 12:41 AM
We could just do different maps. One would have the EU, the other would not. One would have Iraq, Afghanistan, and Myanmar. The other would have African nations. etc.
We could do 2-3 maps like that.
I was just looking for a project to get involved in, I don't really mind, but I think that this is a good idea or this mod will never get done.

:agree:I think this is a brilliant idea :clap:, but wouldn't that take a lot of work? (There should be one that has all nations suggested for the people that have huge computer power [not me :(] but that project should be for later)

sheep21
Aug 10, 2008, 07:13 PM
Perhaps it would be expedient to amalgamate some countries for simplicity sake?

Say
Malayasia, Singapore, Thailand & Philipines
Vietname, Laos & Cambodia
Australia & NZ
UK & Eire
Indonesia & Papua New Guinea
Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan & India
Oman, Yemen, UAE & Kuwait
Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon & Syria


for africa there is the failed state\barbs plan but i think these chaps should be included

South Africa, Egypt, they are the major players on the continent and the most stable aswell.

ijnavy
Aug 11, 2008, 09:03 AM
I don't think that that's a good idea since it's not how it is in the real world. Some countries will be civ, and some independents.
For more realism, every time that you conquer a city, you get a -1 relations with all civs (or should we skip this?).

Gooblah
Aug 26, 2008, 05:23 PM
Hi guys! Sorry I haven't been on in a while, my BTS broke and internet troubles arose. Currently, I don't have BTS so I can't work with the tech files...:sad::(

Anyways, here's a map of the proposal from page 1. Any gray areas are countries not included in that proposal. I'll make maps of each proposal to make life easier. It's a tad big, and if you can't differentiate the colors....get a better card. :lol: The colors on there are just ones I chose, hopefully not the final ones.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff136/kamikazeshadow/World2008.jpg

Gooblah
Aug 26, 2008, 05:47 PM
Here's Ijnavy's proposal (page 2); India has been extended to cover Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh. I wasn't sure what to do with Africa, so that's blank along with SE Asia and Afghanistan.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff136/kamikazeshadow/IJNAVYsPROPOSAL.jpg

sgrig
Aug 26, 2008, 08:14 PM
Canadians and Aussies won't like this, but how about joining UK with Canada, Australia and NZ? This would reduce the number the civs, and would make UK more powerful. This also highlights the fact that UK has quite close relations with these former colonies. Moreover they have the same official head of state!

JEELEN
Aug 26, 2008, 10:40 PM
Hi guys! Sorry I haven't been on in a while, my BTS broke and internet troubles arose. Currently, I don't have BTS so I can't work with the tech files...:sad::(

Anyways, here's a map of the proposal from page 1. Any gray areas are countries not included in that proposal. I'll make maps of each proposal to make life easier. It's a tad big, and if you can't differentiate the colors....get a better card. :lol: The colors on there are just ones I chose, hopefully not the final ones.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff136/kamikazeshadow/World2008.jpg

On both maps Russia seems to have reoccupied Belorus. Also, there's no "Neutral Bloc", but Non-aligned Nations fits perfectly (and makes certain annexations of jnavy's unnecessary). On another note: NATO and EU overlap, which would need to be expressed in alliances (which basically would make them equal) or another way.

Amogos
Aug 27, 2008, 01:22 PM
Canadians and Aussies won't like this, but how about joining UK with Canada, Australia and NZ? This would reduce the number the civs, and would make UK more powerful. This also highlights the fact that UK has quite close relations with these former colonies. Moreover they have the same official head of state!Canada and UK shouldn't be joined. They are quite different, especially in politics. (Everyone likes Canada:D)

sgrig
Aug 28, 2008, 02:07 PM
Canada and UK shouldn't be joined. They are quite different, especially in politics. (Everyone likes Canada:D)

Yeah that's the difficulty with having fewer Civ spots than there are countries. That's why you also can't really lump all of EU together, because they are all also very different.

I actually miss the days of Civ2 when there were only 7 civ spots, so you didn't have a choice and had to lump lots of countries together. Now with up to 40 civs in a game, some countries have the honour of being represented as independent ones, while others have to be joined with someone else.

Joecoolyo
Oct 13, 2008, 07:10 PM
Since when was Mexico a failed state?

Alexander-86
Oct 18, 2008, 11:38 AM
Hello pople..
I would like to help about Balkan states (since I am from that region)
I realy think that the best (and the real) thig would be to devide balkan in three larger sectors
1. is Srbian sector (with Macedonia and east Bosnia & Hercegovina and Montenegro) whitch would be in good relations (or in influence) by Rusia

2. is Croatian sector (with Albania, west Bosnia & Hercegovina) Whitch would be in good relations (or in influence) by NATO ( or USA)

3. and EU sector (Greece, Bulgaria, Slovenia , Romania)

It would be interesting to play whith no 1 or no 2 since the history of Balkans in recent years, and strugle of influence between Russia and USA it could be used for low levil fights ets..
What do you people think? I hope You would like it!
And keep up the good work!, When will be the relise of this mode?

sheep21
Oct 19, 2008, 10:06 AM
Here's Ijnavy's proposal (page 2); India has been extended to cover Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh. I wasn't sure what to do with Africa, so that's blank along with SE Asia and Afghanistan.

http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff136/kamikazeshadow/IJNAVYsPROPOSAL.jpg


after a long old think I have come to the conclusion that this would be the best working solution out of a bad dilema. The only way I can see the UK surivivng on its own is through having massively productive cities with high gold, science and hammers output.

Krug
Nov 15, 2008, 08:23 PM
http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff136/kamikazeshadow/World2008.jpg

Well, I've looked at the page for this mod and decided to jump on the Bandwagon for it. First off some things about this map, I like it but, I have some suggestions.


-Puntland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Somalia_map_states_regions_districts.PNG), should be AU, and Somaliland should be Neutral, or Minor, as they have currently declared independance. The rest of Somalia should be failed. Or be apart of some Jihad Nation (See Bottom of Post)

-Sri Lanka should be split in half, for obvious reasons (Tamil Tigers)

-Kivu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kivu_conflict), should be Failed, or something.

-The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Region_of_Muslim_Mindanao should be seprate, or part of the Jihadist Nation, due to a current war with the Phillipine Government.

-Morocco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency_in_the_Maghreb) should be Failed or Jihadist.

-Balochistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochistan_conflict) and Kurdistan (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_%281992%29.jpg) should be seprate.

-Pattani (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency) and Sad'ah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27dah_insurgency) should be Seprate or Jihadist.

-Parts of Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War)should be failed, not all of it. The rest needs to be its own country.

So, overall, I'm Proposing, these new countries:

Jihadist
Morrocco (Capital)
Pattani
Sad'ah
ICU area of Somalia
Mindanao

Areas in Revolt
Kurdistan (Capital)
Balochistan
Somaliland
Kivu
Tamil

sheep21
Nov 17, 2008, 04:44 PM
like your ideas but they would use up valuable leaderslots for what are extremely minor states on the world map.

Krug
Nov 17, 2008, 05:46 PM
Eh, maybe not a seprate Nation for each, but instead use the "Failed States" civ to represent them, as they are going on right now. Plus places like Kurdistan are quite large and definetly ned representation.

Don't forget my Idea on Sri Lanka.

Bahmo
Dec 03, 2008, 03:04 PM
Why do you all hate Morocco and Tibet?

We need to ammend that map. I was going to suggest putting the US in control of Kabul and Baghdad, with Barbarians surrounding them. Here again, if we can't fit in some other cities to put Barbarians in control of, we could implement the components that gives the Barbarians a "Mongol Yurt" sort of unit that spawns an army if not stopped, or a "goblin lair" terrain feature that also spawns units until pillaged. Since the USA wants to pull out of Iraq, though, maybe if it hasn't been completely done once the mod's released, give the US some hypothetical Derrivative Civilization (For those who don't know, a Derrivative Civilization is one programmed to form when another grants colonies their independence), so it can happen during the course of the mod.

I remain skeptical of lumping Tibet with the Barbarians. They want independence, but they aren't resorting to terrorism to get it. Even if Tibet did start a war of independence, it would be more interesting if the rest of the world had the option of treating them as a nation rather than troublemakers, starting a war with China in the process. Let's face it; war is fun. If anything, make Tibet a vassal of China, and we can reduce the default loyalty of vassals if we want there to be a chance of rebellion. (We could do that with Iraq, too.)

Meanwhile, are we still putting Japan together with Taiwan, the Phillipines, other pacific island states, and maybe some mainland states like South Korea and Vietnam? I think that should be done, as such Asian countries tend to follow a unified economic policy.

Krug
Dec 03, 2008, 03:18 PM
Why do you all hate Morocco and Tibet?

We need to ammend that map. I was going to suggest putting the US in control of Kabul and Baghdad, with Barbarians surrounding them. Here again, if we can't fit in some other cities to put Barbarians in control of, we could implement the components that gives the Barbarians a "Mongol Yurt" sort of unit that spawns an army if not stopped, or a "goblin lair" terrain feature that also spawns units until pillaged. Since the USA wants to pull out of Iraq, though, maybe if it hasn't been completely done once the mod's released, give the US some hypothetical Derrivative Civilization (For those who don't know, a Derrivative Civilization is one programmed to form when another grants colonies their independence), so it can happen during the course of the mod.

I remain skeptical of lumping Tibet with the Barbarians. They want independence, but they aren't resorting to terrorism to get it. Even if Tibet did start a war of independence, it would be more interesting if the rest of the world had the option of treating them as a nation rather than troublemakers, starting a war with China in the process. Let's face it; war is fun. If anything, make Tibet a vassal of China, and we can reduce the default loyalty of vassals if we want there to be a chance of rebellion. (We could do that with Iraq, too.)

Meanwhile, are we still putting Japan together with Taiwan, the Phillipines, other pacific island states, and maybe some mainland states like South Korea and Vietnam? I think that should be done, as such Asian countries tend to follow a unified economic policy.

I like your first two Ideas, making Iraq a dirivitive Nation is very good.

However, I don't think Japan should be Lumped in with Taiwan, as I think the Japanese would not go to War with China if Taiwan was Invaded, yet I don't think Taiwan should be on its own either, then it becomes too easy a conquest for the PRC Player, if anything it should be Barbarian and Tibet be a Nation in its place, they are a very Large Autonamous State. Sorry, but I like the "Independent Nations" civ, so I don't want that to be lumped into Japan either, finally, the Phillipines I want seperate for the Insurgency going on there. Japan should just be well, Japan.

The problem with Morrocco is, its a battle ground waiting to happen, there are Terrorists, and, I think, Three countries wanting a piece of that pie, and it should be Barbarian to show the fact that, in the end, who ever has the most Strength (The AU or IAS in this case) wins the prize.

DVS
Dec 03, 2008, 03:30 PM
Taiwan is going to be its own civ, which will start as an American vassal. I also like your idea Bahmo about Iraq being a derivative nation, and of Tibet as its own civ and a vassal of China.

Basically we have our civ list for version 1.0. It's essentially the one currently posted in the first post of this thread I believe. After we get 1.0 up and running we can modify and improve things.

Bahmo
Dec 03, 2008, 04:29 PM
The USA has severed diplomatic ties with Taiwan, though not trade, so making them an American vassal makes no sense, even they began as one. However, you can still start the game with them having a defense contract. Meanwhile, on a normal-sized map, Taipei is probably the only city we'll be able to fit, so maybe beef it up really hard. If you can't think of anything else to do with Taiwan, fine, but I'd advise against getting in the habit of making every tiny nation its own Civ.

What's to be done with the rest of Continental Asia? Are Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia lumped with China, or just with each other, or with some Island nations, or something else entirely?

whitelaughter
Dec 03, 2008, 10:00 PM
Suicide Bombing

-1 Population, +5 :mad:,

In a modern era, 1 Population is about, what, a million people? When was the last time a suicide bombing managed that?

Palestine, in Civ terms, is just a case of cultural(yeah, the name doesn't fit) expansion across the border into Israel by the Arab bloc. It'll blip out of existence with the next cultural jump in Jerusalem.

It's probably a good idea to split Islam (into Sunni and Shiite).

And to bud Roman Catholicism off from the rest of Christianity. Partly because of historical clashes with Protestants, Orthodox, (and frankly everyone else - even the Thomasites).
Also Catholic and Protestant worlds are different places,with very different life spans etc. And finally having a third of the population of the planet in one religion is going to give a massive benefit to those nations; splitting into two groups allows for more variety.
Besides, we're down two religions - China has nearly stamped out Confusicianism and Taoism.
Judaism is incredibly rare, but should be present; America and Australia should be pro-Israel as part of the effort to squeeze more culture/happiness out of Free Religion.

Should traditionally neutral states ie Switzerland be considered Pacifist rather than Free Religion?

Bahmo
Dec 03, 2008, 11:41 PM
We long-since agreed to forego traditional religion in favor of state ideologies, which are more relevent to the modern world. What they are now may demand changes, but that's the better idea.

whitelaughter
Dec 04, 2008, 04:36 AM
Perhaps it would be expedient to amalgamate some countries for simplicity sake?

You can easily justify combining Egypt and Syria: from 1958 to 1961 they were the same country, and after Syria seceded attempts were made to once again rejoin: largely failing due to Syria's anarchy & coups.

Besides, from a game perspective, this means the player has a good in-game rationale for extreme hostility to Israel: the desire to unite their territories.
Put the capital in Cairo and a Forbidden Palace in Damascus.

DVS
Dec 07, 2008, 06:02 PM
What's to be done with the rest of Continental Asia? Are Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia lumped with China, or just with each other, or with some Island nations, or something else entirely?

Looking at the map we're going to use, I suspect that continental south east asian nations that we aren't including will be eaten up by the ones we are (I think we have Myanmar and Thailand). We're only using a huge size map remember, not GEM. The original idea was to have Vietnam as part of the independent nation block, but there may not be room for that. We'll see I guess.



We need to ammend that map. I was going to suggest putting the US in control of Kabul and Baghdad, with Barbarians surrounding them.

Definitely, that's the idea. See the first post in this thread.

Here again, if we can't fit in some other cities to put Barbarians in control of, we could implement the components that gives the Barbarians a "Mongol Yurt" sort of unit that spawns an army if not stopped, or a "goblin lair" terrain feature that also spawns units until pillaged.

Since the USA wants to pull out of Iraq, though, maybe if it hasn't been completely done once the mod's released, give the US some hypothetical Derrivative Civilization (For those who don't know, a Derrivative Civilization is one programmed to form when another grants colonies their independence), so it can happen during the course of the mod.



Both great ideas. Do you know how we can code/otherwise include the mongol yurt unit and goblin lair features? Those could be used in a few places.

In fact I think it would be great if we could have those kinds of units appear whenever a powerful civ invades and occupies another country. Ideally more often and stronger in certain regions, for example the middle east and south east asia, with weaker ones in say africa or latin america.

Bahmo
Dec 07, 2008, 10:05 PM
I personally cannot code the Mongol Yurt or Goblin's Lair. The former was released as a module, though, so you can maybe find that and fiddle with it. As to the latter, as with the crime rate, see the FFH staff for that.

whitelaughter
Dec 08, 2008, 03:13 AM
Looking at the map we're going to use, I suspect that continental south east asian nations that we aren't including will be eaten up by the ones we are (I think we have Myanmar and Thailand). We're only using a huge size map remember, not GEM. The original idea was to have Vietnam as part of the independent nation block, but there may not be room for that. We'll see I guess.

If you don't include Vietnam, then you may as well combine all of south east Asia into a single state. All the nations are largely Buddhist; all have a history of military coups; all have an isolationist history;all of them dislike China. There are substantial differences between Thailand and Burma/Myanmar of course, but no greater than the differences between either of them and Vietnam.

DVS
Dec 14, 2008, 09:48 PM
Ok I decided to use this thread to post a response to something Sheep21 asked me over Yahoo. My response got a little to out of hand and I didn't want to crash his im program.

Perhaps other Canadians want to weigh in. This is just how I see it.


Re: what do people in the rest of Canada think of Quebec and vice versa?



sorry about this novel dude, but it’s a bit complicated and I can’t sum it up any better.

as for Quebec, it's sort of split in the rest of Canada. People in Alberta (oil rich province) really dislike the financial situation with Quebec; they think that they get too much from the federal government. Basically most people outside Quebec think that to one degree or another, but it intensifies in Alberta.

See, most other provinces also get more from the federal government than they pay (including Manitoba, the one I am in). So the rich provinces (Ontario, Alberta, BC), basically give money to the rest of us to make up for the extra money they take in from resources. Resource money in this country gets divided up and shared with every province, even the ones that have none, since Trudeau. Tax money from resources I mean, other than hydro power they are not nationalized. So people in the provinces that get what are called equalization payments tend to be more sympathetic to Quebec than those in the rich provinces on the financial issue.

So basically Albertans hate this, they think because the oil is in their province they should get all the income. This makes no sense to me (The Yukon has no people but huge resources, should they all be billionaires?) Alberta is already disproportionately rich as it is, they would be the most backwards province if they didn't have oil, instead of the richest. Hell, they have two NHL hockey teams, my province has zero, and other than oil, our industry and trade is a lot more advanced than Alberta’s. So as I said, it's really split. The city I am from, Winnipeg has a huge French population, so I would say there is probably less people here who have a problem with Quebecers than some other places. I have no problem with them really.

The separatists are another story altogether. I think most people outside Quebec really dislike at least separatist politicians if not all people who voted for separation last time (49% I think). Personally I think they should be allowed to split if they had a clear mandate from the people, but I wouldn't be happy about it. We have French as our second language (can't work for the gov anywhere without being fluent) and do a number of other things to respect their diversity or whatever, and they want to pay us back by declaring independence, it's an insult to us. These people (separatists) are whiners to me, but the more I dislike the federal government of Canada, the more I see the case for independence.

I especially would not be happy about their plan last time around to keep using our currency and navy to protect them. If they split the government of Canada should not subsidize a cent of it. But that's just me, I'm in favor of more direct democracy, most people in the rest of Canada would probably want the armed forces to prevent quebec separation (which was the PM's plan if they had lost the vote last time it turned out).

Now if Alberta wanted to declare independence, then we would have to use the armed forces or whatever to prevent it. Different story completely.

Really, most Canadians either hate people from Quebec, or people from Ontario, or people from Alberta, or any combination of the three.

Or Newfies.

Oh, and people from Saskatchewan hate people from Manitoba. However that is mostly about football. And the fact they the all just wish they were Manitoba.

whitelaughter
Dec 15, 2008, 04:02 AM
[grins] What you are describing is repeated in most nations, merely changing the names.

So for Australia, Western Australia is the state which has the huge natural resources; their politicians complain that they are subsidising everybody else. NSW and Victoria complain that as the industrial & population hubs, they should have more. Adelaide makes the same claim based on their being a centre of culture.

It'd be nice to think that we could work out some agreement, but telling people that they are hard done by is a staple of rabble rousing; politicians aren't going to give up this way of getting re-elected.

In Civ terms, couldn't Quebec be treated as a conquered vassal state?

VeteranLurker
Dec 17, 2008, 02:12 PM
Have you looked at the Revolutions mod for a way to handle the separatist issue? I've not played it repeatedly or played it very recently, but it does have a dynamic for cities splitting away if they are not kept in-line (I recall you could do this through happiness, bribes, military presense, and combinations thereof). I don't know what happens though as you approach the limit for the number of civs in the mod.

[BTW, there is a version of Revolutions which incorporates Dales Combat Mod and the Super Spies mod, mentioned elsewhere as possible additions.]

DVS
Dec 18, 2008, 02:06 AM
Have you looked at the Revolutions mod for a way to handle the separatist issue? I've not played it repeatedly or played it very recently, but it does have a dynamic for cities splitting away if they are not kept in-line (I recall you could do this through happiness, bribes, military presense, and combinations thereof). I don't know what happens though as you approach the limit for the number of civs in the mod.

[BTW, there is a version of Revolutions which incorporates Dales Combat Mod and the Super Spies mod, mentioned elsewhere as possible additions.]

yes thanks, I'm going to check it out. Looks good.

DVS
Dec 18, 2008, 02:08 AM
[grins] What you are describing is repeated in most nations, merely changing the names.

So for Australia, Western Australia is the state which has the huge natural resources; their politicians complain that they are subsidising everybody else. NSW and Victoria complain that as the industrial & population hubs, they should have more. Adelaide makes the same claim based on their being a centre of culture.

It'd be nice to think that we could work out some agreement, but telling people that they are hard done by is a staple of rabble rousing; politicians aren't going to give up this way of getting re-elected.

In Civ terms, couldn't Quebec be treated as a conquered vassal state?


It could be, but I don't think we should do it that way. Just leave Canada united. :goodjob:

whitelaughter
Dec 18, 2008, 05:14 AM
Just leave Canada united. :goodjob:
Oh, agreed, but should Quebec have a percentage of the population belonging to a different (now extinct) Civ?

Skell Jell
Dec 20, 2008, 10:20 AM
Note: This list assumes the integration of ideas proposed by me and NikNaks involving the addition to the Foreign Advisor of an alliance system.
1. United States of America – allied to Nato
2. Canada – allied to Nato
3. Mexico
4. People's Republic of China
5. Democratic People's Republic of Korea
6. Russian Federation (controls all the –stans)
7. Israel
8. Myanmar
9. Egypt
10. Iran
11. Syria
12. Republic of Korea
13. Nigeria – Allied to AU
14. Pakistan
15. India
16. Venezuela
17. Colombia
18. Brazil
19. Argentina
20. Myanmar
21. Japan
22. Australia- allied to Nato
23. Philippines
24. Republic of Indonesia
25. Saudi Arabia
26. South Africa – allied to AU
27. Taiwan
28. European Union –allied to Nato?
29. African Union
30. Failed States – Minor Civ
31. ASEAN
32. Iraq-Vassal of USA
33. Afghanistan-vassal of USA
34. Greater Carribean/Central America
35. United Kingdom – allied to EU, Nato

What about making a Former Soviet Socialist Republics civ??

Maybe make Israel a vassal of the US...

DVS
Dec 20, 2008, 11:10 AM
Good eye Skell Jell, but the final civ list is here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=301906

Former Soviet Socialist Republics is a good idea for a civ. For version 1.0 of this mod though, we are going to stick with the list we have. If we keep changing things around this mod will never get finished!

Thanks for your input as always