View Full Version : MAP development


Pages : [1] 2

kbrennan7654
May 13, 2008, 06:57 PM
I'm sorry this is really late but i just havent had the time. I will work on the map tonight and hope to get alot done

NikNaks
May 15, 2008, 03:23 PM
Cool, when you've done some work on it, upload it here.

RegentBob
May 25, 2008, 04:27 PM
What size map are you considering, "Huge" or something on par with Genghis Kai's "Giant Earth Map?"

I read the list of planned civs, and it occurs to me that you will need a really big map.

SoI
May 26, 2008, 05:14 AM
What if the map is made on the Rhye's principale of different tile productivity in different areas? it will help make the Europe competitive without making a very big map which will undoubtfully lead to long turns. It'll also help to avoid hard to manage overgrown states like Russia, US and Canada.

ijnavy
Jun 12, 2008, 02:49 PM
I also agree it should be made on Rhye's map because if we make it on Genghis Kai's, the turns will take too long.

ijnavy
Jul 01, 2008, 07:56 PM
I can upload rhye's map and take away the marshes.

JEELEN
Aug 02, 2008, 10:23 AM
That's not really necessary: there's an 18 civ Huge Earthmap by Rhye, which works w/patch 3.17 (no marshes). Also, I've been asked by NikNaks to do a 2008 scenario version and thought of using that map. (It's basically the same as the Amra 18 civs BtS map, which was originally done by Amra for Warlords.)

Any suggestions?:confused:

NikNaks
Aug 02, 2008, 12:08 PM
Sure, go for it! At the moment, we have some of the civs added and I've gotten rid of all the unnecessary units.

JEELEN
Aug 02, 2008, 12:26 PM
Yes, well... there are 18 civs in. Could you tell me what civs you need in - or shall I just edit it myself? (You can add me as Map Editor on your team list if you like.) I reckon you'll be using all modern units (of which there are already plenty available and still more being poured out).

Without any further suggestions I'll be posting a 0.1 version when it's done (but I can add in any requests you guys may have).;)

NikNaks
Aug 02, 2008, 12:27 PM
Try the "Civs Discussion" thread; there's a list there. And yes, tons of modern units, but you can just use generic marines, modern armor etc. for now.

JEELEN
Aug 03, 2008, 08:43 AM
OK, thx! Will do. More news later.;);)

NikNaks
Aug 03, 2008, 09:40 AM
Excellent! :D

hevehoc
Aug 04, 2008, 02:44 AM
so the map is under construction?

NikNaks
Aug 04, 2008, 02:47 AM
Yes it is. We have two maps underway now, one from JEELEN and another from Munch.

JEELEN
Aug 04, 2008, 08:27 AM
I've copied this from post #1 in the Civs thread (which, BTW, might be outdated as it hasn't been edited since first posted).

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.

Now there's 35 civs on the list, so for an 18 civ map some have to be lumped together, included in the Independent Nations and/or represent as barbs. (I may be able to extend civs present beyond 18, but can't promise it.) Because of mapsize (Huge) some may also just be to small to be individually represented (Liechtenstein, Monaco, Dom. Rep. + Haïti on 1 isle tile, etc).

Also, what map is Munch working on? (Haven't found any reference to it.):confused:

JEELEN
Aug 04, 2008, 10:19 AM
I've downloaded Carter's 18/24/36 map (again) to see if it's usable with 3.17. If so the 36 civs map would be best, I reckon.

NikNaks
Aug 04, 2008, 10:20 AM
I should have mentioned that we already have a DLL, but use that for testing, by all means.

JEELEN
Aug 04, 2008, 10:41 AM
Where's the DLL?:confused: (I'm sure I need it, as Carter's maps are Cartermod- linked, and I know about map editing, but am a total moron on modding anything. I've got another 34 civ map listed in my Public Maps folder, but can't tell what mod it's linked to - it doesn't show up on the in-game scenario/map list.)

BTW, is the civ list still up to date?

Still don't know about IM (PM not fast enough?); I generally check CFC several times daily, just to keep updated.

NikNaks
Aug 04, 2008, 10:44 AM
Right, the DLL is stored on the SVN. I can give you a link to that directly.

The list is up to date so much as everything is right except Europe, which is still under discussion, although assume that there will be more civs rather than less (say, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Scandinavia (one civ), Eastern Europe (one civ) and a couple of others to fill the gaps).

IM just seems to be quicker to me. Even this post is 3 minutes after yours, not instant.

JEELEN
Aug 04, 2008, 10:53 AM
Right, the DLL is stored on the SVN. I can give you a link to that directly.

That'd be great. (I found the SVN, but the Tortoise linked me to several downloadable files, not telling what I needed to DL really.)

Alright, where do I get the IM? (You could also just type faster.):mischief:

NikNaks
Aug 04, 2008, 10:55 AM
Post got cut off? Anyway, here's the link (http://world2008mod.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/world2008mod/Assets/CvGameCoreDLL.dll).

JEELEN
Aug 04, 2008, 11:05 AM
No, just looking for the Tortoise - and thx!;)

NikNaks
Aug 04, 2008, 11:15 AM
Hey! My typing is perfectly fast :p

Do you have a Google account of any kind? Hotmail? Yahoo? Anything like that has an appropriate IM to go along with it.

What's the file choice for Tortoise? If in doubt, go for the latest 32-bit Windows installer.

JEELEN
Aug 04, 2008, 11:16 AM
Errr... OK, I've got the DLL in a 2008 mod folder, but there's no INI or anything... So, now what?:confused:

NikNaks
Aug 04, 2008, 11:17 AM
What other files do you normally have?

JEELEN
Aug 04, 2008, 11:21 AM
Missed a post...

Hey! My typing is perfectly fast :p

Yeah, but can you type lefthanded while eating dessert?:mischief:

Do you have a Google account of any kind? Hotmail? Yahoo? Anything like that has an appropriate IM to go along with it.

What's the file choice for Tortoise? If in doubt, go for the latest 32-bit Windows installer.

I've enabled e-mail messaging.

Thx again, BTW. (Will probably miss another post while visiting the Tortoise...)

NikNaks
Aug 04, 2008, 11:23 AM
Looks like you missed a post again...

I've added you on Google Talk. I'd remove your email from your post before it gets picked up by spam bots. :borg:

JEELEN
Aug 04, 2008, 11:30 AM
Google Talk?:confused: Alright (removed the link).

You can type fast but you didn't answer my questions. (Waiting for the Tortoise DL...):crazyeye:

Do I need all that stuff? (Just wondering, as I just want to start working on a map, y'know.):mischief:

JEELEN
Aug 04, 2008, 11:33 AM
Was still waiting for Düsseldorf to DL, so I switched to Amsterdam -> instant DL! (Weird.) Will be installing now, so you can post some more.:mischief:

PS: I've also gone undercover. ("Whooa, I'm invisible!")

NikNaks
Aug 04, 2008, 11:39 AM
Er, right. What exactly have you enabled on Google? You might need to actually log-in to chat, but I'm not sure.

JEELEN
Aug 04, 2008, 12:17 PM
Sorry,was off-line for awhile installing and loading the mod. Didn't get far, 'cause of load errors. Anyway, will be off-line again til tomorrow probably due to RL obligations.;)

JEELEN
Aug 10, 2008, 04:15 AM
Seeing as Bastian-Bux has been kind enough to create a clean GEM-map, all we need now is a bugfree World 2008 mod version. (Last time I tried, I couldn't get it to load).

NikNaks
Aug 10, 2008, 04:17 AM
Really? What errors do you get?

JEELEN
Aug 10, 2008, 04:28 AM
Several, I think they were LH-related. Want me to try again or can I load it with no LHs? :confused:

NikNaks
Aug 10, 2008, 04:40 AM
Can you post the errors?

JEELEN
Aug 10, 2008, 07:10 AM
When loading world2008mod I get this error:

Assert failed
File: \CvXMLLoadUtilitySet.ccp
Line: 1545
Expression: bSuccess
Message:

When trying to load various maps (Bastian Bux's clean GEM map, Amra 18 civs BtS, Carter32civs) various XML error messages appear (referring mostly to UNITCLASS xml errors) and the game CTDs. With the GEM map this message appeared twice:

Assert failed
File: \CvGlobals.cpp
Line: 4861
Expression: szType
Message: null info type string

NikNaks
Aug 10, 2008, 07:12 AM
Ok, I'll look into those.

UNpatriot
Sep 29, 2008, 04:52 AM
An example of how Rhye's huge Earth map could be used:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=189973&stc=1&d=1222681052

around 40 civs, looks pretty balanced (unrealistic "Neutral" countries needed only in Africa and South America

Every bigger civ has at least 2 decent cities (except Israel, which can have either 1 or 2 depending on whether Syria is extended one tile south or not)

(A B C are the smaller nations, which need to be solved some way)

Afghanistan is swallowed by Iran and Pakistan

Baltic states are stuck between St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad, as they'd be too small to be a decent "real" civ

Former Yugoslavia is divided between Romania, Greece and Italy (this could use some more work)

Poles can decide whether they want to be a part of Germany or Ukraine (sorry poles, but Poland would be too small, like the Baltic states)

Israel enlarged to make them a bit more competitive against the surrounding civs, no room for Palestine but the "close borders" penalty makes most surrounding civs realistically unfriendly to them

Laos, Thailand and Cambodia gobbled by Myanmar and Vietnam

sheep21
Oct 01, 2008, 08:09 PM
all sounds good UN patriot

h4ppy
Oct 07, 2008, 03:53 PM
Shouldn't Diego Garcia be British and not American? (going off of JEELIN's post)

JEELEN
Oct 07, 2008, 04:01 PM
Eh... no. As far as I know Diego Garcia hosts a US naval base. (Kind of an important one too.);)

sheep21
Oct 19, 2008, 10:12 AM
Eh... no. As far as I know Diego Garcia hosts a US naval base. (Kind of an important one too.);)

yes, in BRITISH territory. Not called British Indian Ocean Territory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory) for nothing. Diego Garcia is best represented by the UK & USA having open boarders, so players can still use it as forward operating base if they so wish.

Its not called a British Overseas Territory for nothing :p

JEELEN
Oct 19, 2008, 12:31 PM
Fair enough. Although I don't mind what the Territory is called, as long as it's got a US base on it.

sheep21
Oct 19, 2008, 09:42 PM
if uyou read the article it is a a joint US\UK base, with RAF units based there too.

Open boarders with a 1 pop city with all the military\naval building would best represent it.

That way US can use it without owning it (which it doesnt)

JEELEN
Oct 20, 2008, 02:34 AM
I thought I'd agreed already.

sheep21
Oct 20, 2008, 03:28 AM
I thought I'd agreed already.

sorry mate, was overtired at the time. :blush:

JEELEN
Oct 20, 2008, 12:38 PM
I know the feeling...:sleep: (And I don't mind your correction: I just assumed Diego Garcia was US, because of the naval base.);)

DVS
Dec 08, 2008, 11:19 PM
Jeelen:

FYI, I played for a while with that GEM 1940 map. After 20 turns it's still not slow at all. If Genghis_Kai doesn't mind us using his map, I completely agree with you that this would be the best map to base our main scenario on.

Mattygerst
Dec 16, 2008, 07:45 PM
Quick suggestion:

I HIGHLY suggest having South America and much of Central Africa, and much of central Russia use the "marsh" tile from Rhye's map. This is HIGHLY useful to make sure that South America and Africa don't become compltely crazily over-powerful in commerce, along with central Russia...

The Marsh tile is incredibly important to balance gameplay realistically for the countries on these continents.

DVS
Dec 17, 2008, 09:16 AM
JEELEN: We're going to get the GEM included for you ASAP.

JEELEN
Dec 17, 2008, 10:42 AM
Cool!:thumbsup:

I think Mattygerst's suggestion about including Marsh tiles is also worth considering.

DVS
Dec 17, 2008, 10:51 AM
Definitely. We could also add a Rain forest tile that works in the same way but may be more suitable for places like Brazil.

JEELEN
Dec 17, 2008, 02:49 PM
Sounds ideal.:D

Bahmo
Dec 17, 2008, 03:57 PM
Jeelen:

FYI, I played for a while with that GEM 1940 map. After 20 turns it's still not slow at all. If Genghis_Kai doesn't mind us using his map, I completely agree with you that this would be the best map to base our main scenario on.

How many players were there, though? Also, how many units can really be built in 20 turns? I'm not at all opposed to using the Giant Earth Map if we can, and I even suggested it in the past, but those questions above are worth considering.

DVS
Dec 18, 2008, 01:32 AM
Single player game, 35 civs. I was cranking out units like a mofo and so were at least Britain, America and Russia.

Enkhbayar
Dec 18, 2008, 02:07 AM
Hi,all. I like playing Rhye's scenario mod and I want to play on Rhye's map in normal single player mod. Please, help me find Rhye's map! I have Civ4 v.3.17. It is a very excellent map.

DVS
Dec 18, 2008, 02:20 AM
Hi,all. I like playing Rhye's scenario mod and I want to play on Rhye's map in normal single player mod. Please, help me find Rhye's map! I have Civ4 v.3.17. It is a very excellent map.

Hi, welcome.

The best place to look for Ryse's maps is in his forum (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=204). This forum is for a mod that is not yet ready to be played.

Are you really in Mongolia?

Enkhbayar
Dec 18, 2008, 02:32 AM
I will try to find out as you advice. Thks. I am mongolian.

DVS
Dec 18, 2008, 02:34 AM
Cool.

Good luck.

ianinsane
Jan 05, 2009, 12:27 PM
Does the GEM have special terrain movement costs in the Pacific? Since it is smaller than in reality to have more space on that map for land area it would take a much shorter time for a fleet to cross the Pacific. The World 2009 mod is much about realistic simulation so shouldn't we have a special Pacific tile to slow down navy? This might be significant if there was to be some war between e.g. USA and China.

And another thing that stroke me when I had a closer look at the GEM screenshot: Suez seems to consist of two tiles. Wouldn't it be nice to narrow it to one tile so a city on that tile would represent the Suez Channel that would only be open for nations who have open borders with Egypt. Just like the Russian Black Sea Fleet can leave the Black Sea only through Istanbul.

NikNaks
Jan 05, 2009, 01:42 PM
Both good ideas. Not sure if the "Pacific" tile already exists, but it might.

JEELEN
Jan 05, 2009, 08:26 PM
Does the GEM have special terrain movement costs in the Pacific? Since it is smaller than in reality to have more space on that map for land area it would take a much shorter time for a fleet to cross the Pacific. The World 2009 mod is much about realistic simulation so shouldn't we have a special Pacific tile to slow down navy? This might be significant if there was to be some war between e.g. USA and China.

And another thing that stroke me when I had a closer look at the GEM screenshot: Suez seems to consist of two tiles. Wouldn't it be nice to narrow it to one tile so a city on that tile would represent the Suez Channel that would only be open for nations who have open borders with Egypt. Just like the Russian Black Sea Fleet can leave the Black Sea only through Istanbul.

I don't think GEM has a movement modifier for the Pacific. (Interesting idea though.)

As for Suez: I have a habit of editing maps I use, so I'll look into it. (Although the Suez Canal has 2 cities - Suez and Port Said and a canal can also be simulated by a fort on one of either tiles.)

ianinsane
Jan 06, 2009, 06:02 AM
As for Suez: I have a habit of editing maps I use, so I'll look into it. (Although the Suez Canal has 2 cities - Suez and Port Said and a canal can also be simulated by a fort on one of either tiles.)

So we could have one city and one fort to bypass the two tiles between Red Sea and Middle Sea? That would be nice because you could actually destroy the Suez Channel by bombing the fort. If we exclude city razing from this mod destroying a 1-city-on-1-tile-channel would be impossible.

Let's hope the Egyptian AI is smart enough not to replace that fort with a solar power plant...

DVS
Jan 06, 2009, 01:47 PM
Let's hope the Egyptian AI is smart enough not to replace that fort with a solar power plant...


True. It almost certainly won't be.

DVS
Jan 06, 2009, 03:15 PM
I don't think GEM has a movement modifier for the Pacific. (Interesting idea though.)

As for Suez: I have a habit of editing maps I use, so I'll look into it. (Although the Suez Canal has 2 cities - Suez and Port Said and a canal can also be simulated by a fort on one of either tiles.)


I can't wait to see what you come up with. :D

Let me know if you need anything to help you along.


Talking about editing the maps, have you considered trying to enlarge Israel/Palestine? That was what stood out to me when I examined the map you're using.

Possibly the Koreas as well, but I couldn't think of any way to do it.

Joecoolyo
Jan 06, 2009, 04:49 PM
Yeah, I've played on GEM before (specifically as the Israeli's (Sumerians in the mod are called Israeli's)), and if we put the capitol of Israel as Jerusalem, then there is absolutely no room for Palestine. Plus there will only be enough room for 1 to 2 more cities in Israel (of course with severe overlap). We probably should enlarge it, along with the rest of the western Middle east (west of Iraq), as the whole area seems a bit crammed.

Also after looking at the map a bit (and playing a little on it too), do you think we should edit out the unnecessary desert in Louisiana, Netherlands, Eastern China, etc. I never fully understood why it was put in anyways.

sheep21
Jan 07, 2009, 10:34 AM
desert in the netherlands? one of the most fertile countries in europe. definitely change that one!

JEELEN
Jan 10, 2009, 12:36 PM
I think he means Flood Plains.

Joecoolyo
Jan 10, 2009, 05:27 PM
I think he means Flood Plains.

Oh, that makes sense, though can we change the desert flood plains tile, to maybe grassland floodplains, cause whenever I look at the map, those out of place desert tiles always stick out like a sore thumb... it just kinda bugs me... but I digress, do what you (whoever is making the map) thinks is best for good game play.

Mattygerst
Jan 14, 2009, 03:19 PM
Any chance we could get a screen shot(s) of the current map?...either plain, or with civs put on the map (preferred) will be fine...

DVS
Jan 14, 2009, 03:21 PM
he'll show us something when he's ready. ;-)

Genghis_Kai
Jan 19, 2009, 12:59 AM
I have just read through the last few post on this thread and would like to add some comments that are related to GEM to contribute my two cents.

1) Suez is definitely one tile in width. In my 1940 scenario, Suez is a city that is working as a canal.
2) Pacific special tile sounds like a great idea. Are you guys thinking of making new terrain types, resources for this mod? That would opens up a lot of possibilities I suppose.
3) Desert + floodplain is the standard way to represent floodplain in CIV. I personally don't like that combo too. So in previous revision of GEM, I was doing exactly the suggested combo here - grassland + floodplain to represent those area such as Netherlands, Yellow River and Niles. The problem is that there are many people complained that it makes these areas producing too much food (up to 6 food without development!). So I revert to the default in the later revisions.

ianinsane
Jan 19, 2009, 03:45 AM
1) Suez is definitely one tile in width. In my 1940 scenario, Suez is a city that is working as a canal.
You're right. My mistake. Have been playing your 1940 scenario for the last two days and I love it.

3) Desert + floodplain is the standard way to represent floodplain in CIV. I personally don't like that combo too. So in previous revision of GEM, I was doing exactly the suggested combo here - grassland + floodplain to represent those area such as Netherlands, Yellow River and Niles. The problem is that there are many people complained that it makes these areas producing too much food (up to 6 food without development!). So I revert to the default in the later revisions.
I think this is exactly right as the Netherlands are Europes most densely populated area. So they do need "too much food"!

sheep21
Jan 19, 2009, 04:14 AM
Europe has some of the most effecicent farming methods on the planet, acre for acre Europe produces more than most other areas.

Genghis_Kai
Jan 19, 2009, 08:24 AM
Europe has some of the most effecicent farming methods on the planet, acre for acre Europe produces more than most other areas.

Well, if I remember correctly, I think FAO's research data says that Ukraine and Argentina's soil are the best for growing crops. Technology has it's own food bonus (such as Biology) so I think it should be independent of the land tiles.

But anyway, I just wanted to share my two cents. The decision is of course up your team.

sheep21
Jan 19, 2009, 08:25 AM
no problem. Life would be boring if we all agreed on everything :)

thanks for creating such a great map!

DVS
Jan 19, 2009, 09:40 AM
I have just read through the last few post on this thread and would like to add some comments that are related to GEM to contribute my two cents.

1) Suez is definitely one tile in width. In my 1940 scenario, Suez is a city that is working as a canal.
2) Pacific special tile sounds like a great idea. Are you guys thinking of making new terrain types, resources for this mod? That would opens up a lot of possibilities I suppose.
3) Desert + floodplain is the standard way to represent floodplain in CIV. I personally don't like that combo too. So in previous revision of GEM, I was doing exactly the suggested combo here - grassland + floodplain to represent those area such as Netherlands, Yellow River and Niles. The problem is that there are many people complained that it makes these areas producing too much food (up to 6 food without development!). So I revert to the default in the later revisions.


Thanks for this info. And yes, we are making new resources, and thinking about making new terrain types.

JEELEN
Jan 20, 2009, 05:48 AM
Some people may have noticed my production has been slow to emerge lately... The reason for this, apart from the disappearance from the modding community of such esteemed members such as Amra and Lokolus, is a distinct lack of motivation on my part, perhaps following certain changes of interest in my personal life. So, in short, I'm afraid, although posts may appear from time to time on these forums, I must announce the cessation of further modding on my part. It was fun doing what I did and I can only hope new flagbearers will continue modding (I've noticed a number of new faces already...)!:hatsoff:

PS I will post later today or tommorrow what I've got so far.

DVS
Jan 20, 2009, 08:03 AM
Sorry to hear that JEELEN, but I wish you the best in whatever you start spending your free time on!

Thanks for posting what you have so far (please don't forget before you go! :)), that is still a great contribution to this mod. We can take it from where you left off, and get this finished.

You've provided so many great scenarios for gamers to play with, hopefully new modders will follow in your footsteps!

MasterOfDomain
Jan 20, 2009, 11:49 AM
Thanks JEELEN, although I came too late to fully appreciate your work (one of those new faces I guess). We will carry the mantle you left!

DVS
Jan 20, 2009, 12:01 PM
Thanks JEELEN, although I came too late to fully appreciate your work (one of those new faces I guess). We will carry the mantle you left!


His work will live on, so there is a lot of time for you (an all other newer people) to enjoy his work! Just check out his sig. Those are all maps he has built. :eek:

JEELEN
Jan 21, 2009, 02:58 AM
I appreciate the kind words. (I may do some more modding some time in the future, but for now it seems my interests have changed.)

I had a look at the GEM file this morning, but I haven't gotten very far with it... In addition I checked out the 40 civs mod, but I got an error with that. Also, it seems Genghis_Kai is preparing a new version of GEM. Anyway, here's the mapfile:

DVS
Jan 21, 2009, 09:53 AM
Thanks again JEELEN, I will try to take it from here. If you can think of any tips/suggestions, please post them or send me a PM.

Anyone else who wants to help work on this scenario, please volunteer.

Genghis_Kai
Jan 21, 2009, 10:27 AM
What was your role JEELEN? I might be able to give a bit of help?

I am actually also phasing out from CIV, but a modern scenario on GEM just sounds too appealing!

DVS
Jan 21, 2009, 10:54 AM
@Genghis_Kai: I've sent you a PM.

sheep21
Jan 21, 2009, 10:55 AM
from what I gather Jeelen was involved in Map Development. Im afraid that doesnt really answer your question :(

Still, it would be grand to have you onboard Genghis :D

Genghis_Kai
Jan 21, 2009, 11:28 AM
@DVS: Got the message and replied.

DVS
Jan 21, 2009, 01:41 PM
Kai, I read this in your forum:

"This gives me the flexibility to upscale the size of any interested region on the map."

Can we then easily enlarge the regions we agree on in this thread? Israel/Palestine and the Koreas?

sheep21
Jan 21, 2009, 01:48 PM
middle east in general methinks, it is such an important region in the world presently, koreas definitely.

DVS
Jan 21, 2009, 01:50 PM
look at the map though. The middle east is already a good size. The map is near perfect really, we just may want to make adjustments due to our civ selection, and due to the above average productivity/population density of some of them.

sheep21
Jan 21, 2009, 01:56 PM
righto then, I withdraw my statement :)

Genghis_Kai
Jan 21, 2009, 08:04 PM
It is very difficult to change the ratios now. The ratios are basically set initially when draft the map. And yes, Isreal and Syria are one of the upscaled area already. About 3 times larger than it should.

Genghis_Kai
Jan 21, 2009, 08:07 PM
I had an initial look last night on Palestine. May be we can fit into it Gaza for Palestine and Jerusalem for Israel and that really is the most already.

JEELEN
Jan 21, 2009, 10:59 PM
What was your role JEELEN? I might be able to give a bit of help?

I am actually also phasing out from CIV, but a modern scenario on GEM just sounds too appealing!

The plan was to make a GEM based map for World 2009 Mod; I started out with the last GEM map (18 civs, to be extended to 36, I believe).

After 10+ years of Civ - I've been a member only since late 2006 - I feel I've reached the limits of what Civ can do for me personally, though I still enjoy looking at what other people can create with Civ as a base and I have full confidence in the abilities of new talents, of which I recently saw some fine additions (both in modding and in graphical creations).

DVS
Jan 22, 2009, 11:15 AM
@Genghis_Kai: I've uploaded the map with all our civs added, so you can get started on city placement whenever you'd like. I sent you a PM.


Issues:

1- We have a 50 civ DLL installed, but we still appear to be having a problem having more than 40 playable civs in the scenario. They're all entered (48 including 3 minor/barbarian civs), yet all teams higher than # 39 are not showing up on the "select your civilization" screen.

2- Flags are not showing up in game. This is almost certainly something simple that I'm just missing.

3- Artstyles still have to be changed for most civs (right now they are all set to European). This is something I can easily do later. We may want to consider looking in to adding the AFRICAN artstyle from civgold, since that is something notably missing.

DVS
Jan 22, 2009, 11:20 AM
Ok, more details regarding the civ limit problem.

I know NikNaks has very limited time these days, and I hate to burden him further, but perhaps he can look into this. He knows a great deal more about this stuff than I do.

I don't get any errors with the map the way it is, I just can't see some of the civs in the select your civ screen.

But when I add the "ContactWithTeam=" tags to each team, and have them go up to team 47, I start getting the following errors when loading a game. Hopefully these can help us identify where the restriction we have to change is.

First error:
Assert Failed

File: .\CvTeam.cpp
Line: 3567
Expression: eIndex < MAX_TEAMS
Message: eIndex is expected to be within maximum bounds (invalid Index)


and then:
Assert Failed

File: f:\games\civ4\_new\woc\724\sdk\woc.724\CvTeamAI.h
Line: 23
Expression: eTeam < MAX_TEAMS
Message: eTeam is not assigned a valid value


@NikNaks- Hopefully we can find a time to get on yahoo together soon and discuss how to go about fixing this. In the mean time I will search around and see what I can come up with.

Genghis_Kai
Jan 22, 2009, 11:47 AM
I've spent a bit of time working on city placement today.

What I am doing is basically using the city list in my 1940 scenario as a starting point and changing ownership to the civ list adopted in here. That would allow me assigning cities with a more practical approach (i.e. that cities won't fit because of too close). Then I have spent some time searching for the largest urban areas in population to assign city sizes.

At the moment, I am doing all of these just on excel. This is always the way I do scenarios and it is very easy to place them on the map when I feel the balance is correct.

Some initial stats for your interest:

Civ - number of cities

Belarus - 1
European Union - 69
Georgia - 1
NATO - 23
Permanent Neutrality - 3
Russia - 39
Ukraine - 4

African Union - 39
Algeria - 3
Angola - 2
Egypt - 4
Ethiopia - 1
Failed States - 4
Independent African States - 7
Nigeria - 2
South Africa - 5
Sudan - 4

India - 18
Iran - 7
Israel - 1
Pakistan - 3
Palestine - 1
Saudi Arabia - 4
Sri Lanka - 1
Syria - 1

China - 50
Japan - 9
Kazakhstan - 5
North Korea - 2
South Korea - 3
Taiwan - 2

Australia - 17
Indonesia - 13
Minor Nations - 46
Myanmar - 2
Philippines - 5
Thailand - 3
Vietnam - 3

Argentina - 6
Brazil - 15
Canada - 25
Chile - 4
Colombia - 3
Mexico - 9
Peru - 4
South American Socialist Allies - 10
United States of America - 53
Venezuela - 1


Civ - Total city population (millions)

Belarus - 2
European Union - 79
Georgia - 2
NATO - 31
Permanent Neutrality - 2
Russia - 26
Ukraine - 4

African Union - 23
Algeria - 3.5
Angola - 3.2
Egypt - 20
Ethiopia - 4
Failed States - 4
Independent African States - 7
Nigeria - 11
South Africa - 13
Sudan - 5

India - 97
Iran - 11
Israel - 3
Pakistan - 18
Palestine - 1
Saudi Arabia - 8
Sri Lanka - 2
Syria - 2

China - 120
Japan - 67
Kazakhstan - 2
North Korea - 4
South Korea - 23
Taiwan - 11

Australia - 12
Indonesia - 29
Minor Nations - 31
Myanmar - 5
Philippines - 20
Thailand - 9
Vietnam - 10

Argentina - 13
Brazil - 51
Canada - 13
Chile - 6
Colombia - 10
Mexico - 27
Peru - 8
South American Socialist Allies - 8
United States of America - 123
Venezuela - 3


The reason why I post these initial stat is that I want to show the current game balance for the choice of civs. I understand there are already extensive discussion in this mod on the civ choices already so I won't throw out my personal opinions yet, before I get bombarded :lol: Instead, may be you guys who have been involved in the previous discussion can have some say on it, so that I can learn from those wisdoms too :)

Is really late in here already. So write more tomorrow.

DVS
Jan 22, 2009, 12:15 PM
Wow great stuff, we're really happy to have you doing this. Thanks for posting that info. As I mentioned via PM, your 1940 map is the best oversized/civ heavy map I have ever played for a number of reasons, so I for one am glad to see you using it as a base.

I think the cities you have on it are near perfect as is. The areas I would suggest you consider altering, would be as mentioned Israel/Palestine and to a lesser extent, the Koreas.

Personally I think it would be best to try to get in 5 or 6 cities in Israel/Palestine to best represent that important conflict, which is why I suggested increasing the land area if possible. The two have populations of about 7 and 4 million respectively.

Gaza Strip as the capital for the Palestinians, and East Jerusalem. (East Jerusalem is the proposed capital for the Palestinian state, but that does not exist yet, was the idea here).

Jerusalem as the capital for Israel, along with Tel Aviv, and whatever other 1 or 2 cities work best for placement.

I'd be very interested to hear what you think about this, and any other areas.


edit: Sorry, somehow I missed your posts right above on this topic, I am an idiot. Ok, so we can only have one for each? Can we make it into two each by having them extend into the regions that are in reality Lebanon and Jordan?

Anyway, just a thought. I'm sure whatever you decide on will work best.

DVS
Jan 22, 2009, 12:18 PM
I understand there are already extensive discussion in this mod on the civ choices already so I won't throw out my personal opinions yet, before I get bombarded :lol:


lol, true enough. I can't promise you won't. :D

We have talked a lot about civs, even beyond this forum, in the original concept and development threads. Let us know what changes/additions you are thinking about, it's not too late to make them.

We have discussed darn near every country on earth, so for any that you're thinking about, I will try to recall or find the arguments for/against them.

sheep21
Jan 22, 2009, 05:28 PM
looking good khan. We couldnt have done it better ourselves :D

I'll leave it to DVS to discuss it with you, im not that up to date on civs and the like

DVS
Jan 22, 2009, 05:32 PM
looking good khan.


probably not the first to make this mistake...

sheep21
Jan 22, 2009, 05:33 PM
probably not the first to make this mistake...


LOL

oops, I mean, er... Looking good Kai!


Did i get it right this time?:blush:

Genghis_Kai
Jan 23, 2009, 02:02 AM
Based on what I have posted previously, I would like to point out a few observations, which I think needs our attention.

1) NATO vs. EU. At the moment, NATO is significantly weaker than EU. In fact, NATO only consists of 3 significant powers, namely UK, Turkey and Norway. In comparison, EU is make up of France, Germany, Spain, Italy to just name a few, the imbalance would comes as no surprise. If the initial reason was to weaken EU by splitting Europe into the two, I would think they should be at least closer in size. Moreover, NATO, which consists of just so few nations in comparison to the reality, makes it a bit unrealistic.

2) Africa. DVS already pointed out that Africa needs further look into once the city placement is started, I guess it is something we are aware of before. To be specific, I think the African Union is way too powerful, because in reality, it is only a hypothetical group of minor African nations which are no where as powerful as the selected African nations to be represented on their own (South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria etc). Moreover, the choices of the Independent African States seems a bit arbitrary to me. May be there is some links between Morocco, Libya, Zimbabwe and Kenya that I overlooked?

3) Latin America. In general, I think the selections are well chosen. But there is a similar problem to Africa but to a lesser extent. That is, the south America Socialist Allies will be more powerful than say Colombia or Peru.

4) Asia. In general, I think the selections are well chosen. May be a few nations are missing and can be discussed as to whether they should be combined to their neighbor or put them as minor nations/ barbarians.

5) Failed States. Making the failed states to form an ally seems a bit unrealistic. If they can do so well in diplomatic, they probably wouldn't be known as failed states. At the moment, the Failed States is greater than quit a few African nations and it is quit unrealistic.


I would make the following suggestions for our consideration:

1) I respect the consensus on having EU as one nation, so I would suggest to keep EU in general but removing NATO and replace it by the Commonwealth Realm. Note that I meant Commonwealth Realm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm) NOT the Commonwealth of Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations). The former, consisting mainly the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ, shares a common Queen in constitution, mostly Anglo-Saxon in their demographics, sharing the same language and their political stances most of the time. If keeping EU to represent the countries within the Eurozone, EU and Commonwealth Realm are completely exclusive to one another! This is very different in the case of EU vs NATO. Moreover, we can then have EU, USA and Commonwealth Realm and some minor nations to form the NATO allies - a much more realistic NATO.

In consequence, this is what I would suggest for Europe:
Reduce EU to the Eurozone
Change NATO to Commonwealth Realm
Add the following civ:
Denmark, Norway and Iceland as one civ (Call Scandinavia if you like)
Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria as one civ (Call Balkan states if you like)
Poland as one civ
Turkey as one civ
Remove the following civ:
Australia
Canada
Belarus
Expand the following civ:
Neutrals (include Sweden, in fact I would suggest to remove those non European neutrals in here)
Russia (include Belarus)
Ukraine (include Baltic states)
Georgia (include Azerbaijan)
Put these under Minor state or Barbarians:
Serbia, Croatia and Albania.

2, 3 & 4)
In general, I would suggest to try combining the minor states into the bigger neighbors instead of grouping too many minor states together as one as in the case of African Union. This will help reducing the sizes of African Union and South America Socialist Allies (Actually, this should be called Latin America Socialist to be more accurate).

5) Do we really have to have the Failed states as a civ? Can't we represent it just by Barbarians?

It takes me a lot to write but in summary I am not suggesting to change the civ list a lot. I am actually only suggesting to remove 4 existing civs (Australia, Canada, Belarus and Failed States) and replace by 4 new civs (Scans, Balkan, Poland and Turkey) out of the 48 civs in the list (not counting NATO -> Commonwealth because the leader head can stay the same).

Hope we can consider this.

DVS
Jan 23, 2009, 02:48 AM
Do we really have to have the Failed states as a civ? Can't we represent it just by Barbarians?

I didn't tell you, our "failed states" civ is supposed to just be a different name/flag for the barbarians.


I agree with you about Africa, the AU is much too powerful the way it is. I was hoping we could weaken it by making more cities fall into the independent African nations civ and the minor nations civ, and possibly by exaggerating the size of several of the 7 African countries we are including as civs. The Independent African Nations group is supposed to contain countries that are not closely aligned to the USA/west. Perhaps you can think of other improvements here.

Don't forget the AU civilization is going to start out with undeveloped cities/tiles, and a lot of foreign corporations in its cities, so it will be very weak for its size.


Latin America.

True again about the union being too strong, but since we can't have every country, we have to have some artificial unions right? Keeping them to close allies is the best we can do.

It was called Latin American Socialist Allies at first, I don't know why I changed it. We can change it back no problem.


NATO vs. EU.

Personally I think it should be ok the way it is. We can adjust the way we have the EU and NATO, we could change some countries around to make them more balanced if that is what you think is appropriate. We could also add the other civs you suggested.

To be honest, I have to say I personally dislike the commonwealth idea. I want to have a Canadian civ, we don't relate to the commonwealth at all. I can't speak for Australians. Plus one of the personal reasons I started this mod was to play as Canada, so I would really be disappointed to see it left out at this point. lol

We don't want to make another dominate civ. UK + Canada + Australia would be huge. The superpowers should be the USA, Russia, China, and the EU, with India on their heals. The NATO civ as devised is not meant to lead on its own, it is more an overpowered UK rather than a powerful union of its own. Closely aligned with the US, and EU.



I would suggest to try combining the minor states into the bigger neighbors instead of grouping too many minor states together as one as in the case of African Union. This will help reducing the sizes of African Union and South America Socialist Allies

I'm sure you have a better understanding than I do of how the Minor Nations civ works. If this civ has a bunch of cities scattered around the globe, do we risk it becoming overly powerful? The reason I thought we'd use minor nations and barbarians was to avoid making our artificial unions too powerful, while still avoiding giving extra territory to countries that already have enough of it (ie China, Brazil, EU).

Genghis_Kai
Jan 23, 2009, 03:11 AM
Re: Failed States: Ah, now I know :)

Re: Latin America and Asia I agree with you too that we should not further adding lands to those super nations (China, US, Russia or India). I will have a look at how to make some more combination and propose them later. I will of course keep in mind to have minimal changes to not wasting any existing team effort on leaderheads and civilopia etc.

Re: Europe I would of know that this was the reason :) In fact, I am an Australian citizen (although I am native Chinese) and so I know exactly what you meant.

If that's the case, may I suggest to change my original proposal to NATO -> UK, and keeping Australia (as ANZ) and Canada? Is there anything special about 48 that we can't have 50 civs in total?

Genghis_Kai
Jan 23, 2009, 03:16 AM
Just to clarify on my previous comment about Minor nations. I didn't actually mean the civ 'minor nations' but the members of the 'African Unions'. I completely agree with you on using 'minor nations' and 'barbarian' which are both non playable, to reduce those union's sizes.

sheep21
Jan 23, 2009, 08:44 AM
welll, I have no problem with Commonwealth civ, anything to strengthen the UK position ;)

But I guess I will have to settle for Nato lol

MasterOfDomain
Jan 23, 2009, 10:54 AM
I think the biggest issue (though I haven't actually seen the map myself) is with Europe and the UK. We can't make the UK too powerful, too weak (by being on its own), included in Europe (at risk of inflating the already super-powerful EU) and associated with nations it isn't realistically with; my only problem with the current NATO idea is that it doesn't seem as though it's a global presence and that theirs any connection.

I can see Kai's reasoning behind including Australia and Canada with the UK, because of their cultural connections, language and ethos. Would forcing these powers together make them too overpowered, compared as well to China, the US and the EU? I know it's not as clean-a-method of seperation as we'd have liked, but the picture I'm getting at the moment is of an oddly divided Europe.

We really need to get this one sorted out! :D
Anyone any other ideas/thinks I'm spouting rubbish.

sheep21
Jan 23, 2009, 12:02 PM
see where your coming from MoD

Oz, UK, Canuk & NZ wouldnt be over powerd cos the military of them all put together is maybe 500,000 in all branches. The militaries of australia nz and canada are generally smaller than even the british army.

I like playing devils advocate

Genghis_Kai
Jan 23, 2009, 12:23 PM
NATO is also where I am having trouble with at the moment. It probably represent less than 10% of the actual NATO, making it very strange.

I suggested Commonwealth Realm. But I also understand DVS's concern. So I am now basically suggest to have UK, ANZ and Canada each independently. I just checked my city list. Even excluding ANZ and Canada, UK on its own still possess a lot of island cities (including all the other Commonwealth Realm islands). So UK is still as significant, as say Japan.

It turns out that what I am suggesting is a strong EU civ (the Eurozone) + UK + several independent European nations with about 4-6 cities each.

sheep21
Jan 23, 2009, 12:28 PM
well in mh mind the UK is at about the same level as Japan and that Japan would be an even closer ally of USA if it pursued a more interventionist foreign policy.

Yes, UK has lots of islands :D and British Overseas Territories to populate the worlds oceans.

ianinsane
Jan 23, 2009, 12:46 PM
Nobody ever will be completely happy with these EU and NATO civs because it is simplifying the complicated status they have in reality. So I understand and share your concerns. But to mix the UK up with AUS and CAN IMO would not make it better but worse. Maybe it will be not overpowered by military means at game start but it will be overpowered concerning production and research and can too easily become overpowered later in the game.

My favourite solution for this would actually be to have Turkey and UK both independent. Give UK excellent infrastructure, all necessary national wonders and the military it has in reality. This should work. The huge power the UK has in reality is not because of it's military (26th in the world by military size) or production (GDP is the 5th highest in the world with about 2.7 trillion $...the EU without UK has 14.1 trillion $) it is because of money/trade/banking and diplomacy.

But I totally agree with DVS. It took us soooooooooo long to agree on this NATO/EU solution. So I beg you: Let's leave it the way it is for V1.0. Then play it. If it grosses people out we should think about a change for V2.0.

ianinsane
Jan 23, 2009, 01:18 PM
2, 3 & 4)
In general, I would suggest to try combining the minor states into the bigger neighbors instead of grouping too many minor states together as one as in the case of African Union. This will help reducing the sizes of African Union and South America Socialist Allies (Actually, this should be called Latin America Socialist to be more accurate).


I'd strongly support that. :)

DVS
Jan 23, 2009, 01:29 PM
Is there anything special about 48 that we can't have 50 civs in total?


The reason we left two slots open, if I remember correctly, was to have two civs that could be used in the game to create vassals on the diplo screen, I forget the name of the button offhand. I think the revolutions mod we've merged may also need extra civs to work, but that is just a guess, I haven't played around with it yet.

However, perhaps we can expand the dll to 52 civs? Or 55? This may really be pushing it, I don't know.


I was never totally happy with the way we had our nato civ either, so I'm not adverse to changing it.

So I'm I right in saying the civs you want to add are Turkey, and a Scandinavian union?

Genghis_Kai
Jan 23, 2009, 01:41 PM
Friends, I hope we won't feel too pressured when I raise the Europe issue again. This wasn't my intention. Of course, if the civ list can't be changed, then fair enough for me.

But I feel there aren't that much differences between the voices I heard so far. It doesn't seems to be such a burden to discuss a little further.

We all agreed to have EU. We all agreed the EU should be relative in size to China or US. We all feel the NATO at the moment seems to be a bit strange (at least the voices I heard so far). There were different voices on combining Australia and Canada into UK, but we now already agreed to keep Australia and Canada separate. There aren't much conflicts we have right?

Put it this way, if we are going to actually convert our civ list onto a scenario with over 500 cities (530 cities in the 1940 scenario), we will need to discuss further. Like I mentioned in previous post, there are still lots of gray area. And when I see civs like Belarus which is only going to have one city, I think I should voice out instead of just ignoring it.

sheep21
Jan 23, 2009, 01:48 PM
absolutely Kai, me and DVS have talked long and hard abot belarus, havent we DVS lol

TBH i feel the NATO civ is the best of a bad situation. But if the UK is to be independant as a civ i would be okay with that I guess.

Genghis_Kai
Jan 23, 2009, 01:50 PM
The reason we left two slots open, if I remember correctly, was to have two civs that could be used in the game to create vassals on the diplo screen, I forget the name of the button offhand. I think the revolutions mod we've merged may also need extra civs to work, but that is just a guess, I haven't played around with it yet.

However, perhaps we can expand the dll to 52 civs? Or 55? This may really be pushing it, I don't know.


I was never totally happy with the way we had our nato civ either, so I'm not adverse to changing it.

So I'm I right in saying the civs you want to add are Turkey, and a Scandinavian union?

I am suggesting to add Turkey, Scan, Balkan and Poland and remove Belarus and Failed States (if it is = barbarian, then it shouldn't be counted as a civ.) Poland and Balkan shall be splitted out if EU is to be just the Eurozone.

DVS
Jan 23, 2009, 01:51 PM
No problem Genghis, and sure the civ list can be changed!

We've all put lots of work into this, and I think the main thing is, we want to make it well. You obviously have the best understanding of the map we are using, and were not involved in the original discussion, so we are glad to have your input. Nothing is set in stone, changes can always be made.

NikNaks and were just discussing that we may as well push the limit on our dll higher, so we don't have to worry about a physical cap. The only question is, how many civs can we include and still make the scenario playable?

So if we end up with 50,51,52 or whatever, I don't think that is the end of the world. Some may disagree. I think Bahmo already wants my head on a pike for going with 48! lol

DVS
Jan 23, 2009, 01:55 PM
We sure have sheep21.

So I'm loosing my Lukashenko? damn! Oh well, I can live with that. Just thought it would add some variety to eastern europe, but pulling Poland out of the EU serves the same purpose.

My question now is, what is the idea behind taking countries out of the EU? Why have an EU without Poland and the Scandinavian countries? I don't know as much about this as you guys... what is the Eurozone, the countries that use the currency? Do Poland + Scand countries not?

Genghis_Kai
Jan 23, 2009, 02:04 PM
I would suggest to keep it as 50 for the moment or 52 if you guys want to leave some room for creating vassals. Let's not get our head too big... yet :)

Genghis_Kai
Jan 23, 2009, 02:09 PM
We sure have sheep21.

So I'm loosing my Lukashenko? damn! Oh well, I can live with that. Just thought it would add some variety to eastern europe, but pulling Poland out of the EU serves the same purpose.

My question now is, what is the idea behind taking countries out of the EU? Why have an EU without Poland and the Scandinavian countries? I don't know as much about this as you guys... what is the Eurozone, the countries that use the currency? Do Poland + Scand countries not?

Check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone

I am suggesting to have EU to represent the blue colored countries (may be + Czech as an exception).

The reason why I suggest this is because it would only have good ground to support our choice if we either choose EU to represent the real EU (that is + UK, Turkey and many more) or just the Eurozone. Anything in between would be a bit arbitrary to justify.

ianinsane
Jan 23, 2009, 02:14 PM
I'd love to have Lukashenko in as well. Would you let Russia control Belarus? I'm not sure if we should make Russia any bigger. But I won't thwart you.

I'm not sure about taking countries out of the EU as well. Especially Scandinavia is core part of the EU, Finland does even have the Euro. And Poland...well...under their former Prime Minister Kacynski they seemed not very integrated into the EU. But this has changed now.

DVS: "Eurozone" does refer to the countries that use the Euro. Poland and Sweden don't have it. Finland does, the Baltic states will have it within the next years.

BTW...Norway is in our NATO civ, isn't it?

Check this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone

I am suggesting to have EU to represent the blue colored countries (may be + Czech as an exception).

The reason why I suggest this is because it would only have good ground to support our choice if we either choose EU to represent the real EU (that is + UK, Turkey and many more) or just the Eurozone. Anything in between would be a bit arbitrary to justify.

I can see your point. But couldn't creating a Scandinavian Union (without Finland and Norway) or single out Poland be considered arbitrary, too...?

sheep21
Jan 23, 2009, 02:17 PM
whoa whoa whoa! Hold thy horses poland out of the EU?
This country spent the time since 1989 actively trying to get into the EU and is joining the European Exchange Rate Mechnisim this year and the Euro itself in 2012. I'd rather have a one city belarus than lose Poland, a country that is actively moving toward the heart of Europe.

EDIT: Turkey is not an EU member although looking to join.

DVS
Jan 23, 2009, 02:37 PM
Maybe we should make the full EU then and have the UK part of it (or a vassal). Turkey could be its own state. I don't really think any country that uses EU laws etc should be out of it. sheep and niknaks living there have a better feel for it than I do.

It wasn't arbitrary, in fact it was finely crafted after months and months of discussion and argment. lol

The idea was, the EU civ is supposed to be every country in the EU except the UK. The others that we included in the NATO civ, Norway and Turkey, are NATO but not EU.

If you want to shrink the EU civ, perhaps we could make a second tier EU, that includes all the green countries on that eurozone map you posted, and is a vassal of the EU.


Thinking about it further, Belarus was also included to give Russia one starting vassal (US has a number). Maybe we can keep it and just up the civ count.

I'm late for class now but I will think on it and be back in a couple hours. I'll get that dll modification done hopefully tonight.

Joecoolyo
Jan 23, 2009, 02:44 PM
Wow, looks like a missed an entire conversation, my opinion on NATO and EU is that we should probably keep it as it is, 48 civs is enough, (I don't want my computer to explode). Remember, the EU was created so we don't have to have a boatload of European countries, and NATO was created for the civs that might be part of the EU (or Europeans ones that aren't), but just don't fit in as well as the others (i.e. I think England still uses the pound). My vote is to keep it as it is.

MasterOfDomain
Jan 23, 2009, 03:33 PM
Well I have to say I'm not adverse to making the UK a seperate civ, but only if there are other independent civs in the same position (otherwise it seems a bit segregated, and we might as well have a complete EU). Out of all the countries in the EU, the UK is the most independent I have to admit. The vassal idea is interesting but it sounds like something out of nothing and perhaps trying but failing to achieve a good medium.

On an informative note: the UK still uses the Sterling currency, Denmark and Sweden also do not use the Euro. At the moment there are no plans to join the Euro for the UK, partly because National Debt actually exceeds the required limit for joining and because public opinion is largely against it (national pride and other rubbish..).

sheep21
Jan 23, 2009, 03:41 PM
the euro wouldnt take us anyway, the state of our economy...

Genghis_Kai
Jan 23, 2009, 09:23 PM
Thanks for the different voices. I heard two major objections in regards to my change proposed, although one of them might be a misunderstanding.

1) Echoing what MasterOfDomain said, just taking UK out but not some other seems arbitrary and unfair. So I suggest to take the Eurozone as our reference. Even the World Bank consider the Eurozone as an economic entity, not the Entire EU, so I think it is a solid and objective reference. And I meant Eurozone at 2009 (But if Poland or Baltic are definitely going to join the Eurozone very soon, then they should go in), that is including Finland. In my proposal, Sweden is joining the Switzerland as the neutrals. Only Norway, Denmark and Iceland are combined to form a single civ. We can call it Scandinavia or may be just calling it Denmark or Norway.

2) I also think we should try minimizing the number of civs and hence I absolutely agree with keeping EU as a civ. That already help us to combine at least 5-6 large civs together. I guess what I am suggesting is simply taking a more objective way to represent EU. I am not even an European, so that helps clarifying I am not flavoring any particular nation there :)

Beyond that, we could also try remove one or two civs from other areas. If 48 civs is our agreed limit, then may be we should try removing just a few from elsewhere? I suggested Belarus since it is only going to be only a one city state. I would also suggest Sri Lanka. Again, it is only going to be one city. Except Palenstine and Israel where they are so special on a modern scenario, is there any objective reason why we should choose these one city states?

Genghis_Kai
Jan 23, 2009, 09:32 PM
Btw, how many people are there in the team? Are there still some members that we should consult before we can make the change?

DVS
Jan 23, 2009, 09:38 PM
Belarus: We want Russia to start with at least one vassal.

Sri Lanka: I would say it should be first to go. Was included because of its size and importance, and the war going on there.

I still don't totally get how you want to change our EU civ. Norway, Denmark and Iceland as a civ, and the UK in the EU? And what about Turkey?

What do those three countries have in common? Denmark is in the EU, Norway isn't. It seems to me like creating a Scandinavian civ is creating something fake, which we tried to avoid as much as possible. I would rather see more use of Minor Nations than a new, made up union. Just my two cents.

DVS
Jan 23, 2009, 09:41 PM
Btw, how many people are there in the team?

20 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=274707), contributing on one level or another.


Are there still some members that we should consult before we can make the change?

NikNaks. He's very busy these days but I will point him here.

and I would like to be clear what we are doing, before we make any changes.


Some of the main principles that have guided us:

Not creating artificial unions. (we have one, but they are close allies in reality).

Not creating any fake superpowers.

Genghis_Kai
Jan 23, 2009, 09:54 PM
20 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=274707), contributing on one level or another.




NikNaks. He's very busy these days but I will point him here.

and I would like to be clear what we are doing, before we make any changes.


Some of the main principles that have guided us:

Not creating artificial unions. (we have one, but they are close allies in reality).

Not creating any fake superpowers.

I see what you mean. But both not creating artificial unions and not creating fake superpowers seems impossible if we want to keep the number of civ within 48. Remember what we discussed about African Union? it is a fake superpower at the moment and I was going to see how to combine those neighboring nations together. That would definitely end up going to be some artificial combination.

DVS
Jan 23, 2009, 10:06 PM
The African union is a trouble spot, agreed. We have to make it not a super power, and very hard for the player or AI to make it a super power. Since it is hard to remove foreign corporations, and they cause a large financial loss, and it is also time consuming to build improvements and buildings, it won't be a super power at all for considerable time, no matter how many cities we give it. And if they can't get rid of their corps, they will run deficits and have a hard time improving (since they will loose units and buildings every turn).

The Independent African states is already (actually our 2nd) artificial union. You think we are going to have to do more to prevent the AU from being too strong?

Even after having the 7 civs, expanding the Independent African States, and using the barbarians and minor nations?

DVS
Jan 23, 2009, 10:07 PM
But both not creating artificial unions and not creating fake superpowers seems impossible if we want to keep the number of civ within 48.

yes, I guess my point is that, I think the civs we have picked are our best bet to do this. The way we have it, we have zero fake superpowers, and two fake unions (Latin Americans and independent Africans).

DVS
Jan 23, 2009, 10:11 PM
edit: double post

DVS
Jan 23, 2009, 10:29 PM
Do we all agree that keeping the UK, Turkey, and Norway out of the EU is appropriate, and everyone else in? Actually I seem to recall another of the main reason the UK has to be out of the EU, is that it has troops in Iraq.

Can have the UK on its own, or in a NATO civ with Norway? I'm starting to think Turkey on its own may be good, since the UK is fighting in Iraq and Turkey is not.

Genghis_Kai if you don't like a united EU, why not have two EU civs based on the blue and green countries here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone)? Balkans under NATO control. Doing that, and based on that map, having Ukraine and Belarus as the extra civs looks perfect.

DVS
Jan 23, 2009, 10:36 PM
I think NATO with the UK, Norway, and non-EU Balkans is perfect. Turkey on its own.

sheep21
Jan 23, 2009, 11:46 PM
I would agree with DVS regarding Norway UK and non EU Balkans as an expedient and fairly tidy way of doing things. Mainly 'cos Norway & Balkans arent in the EU yet & the UK pursues a foreign policy at loggerheads woth the rest of the EU as well as generally oppossing any centralisation of power towards Brussels.

With regards to the EU on the continent, the EU is more than a free trade area, it has a parliament with elected deputies, a president, a judiciary that can overrule and declare members legislation to be illegal, the final court of appeal above all over courts in the constituent states. Economicaly europe is tied together brussells tells fisherman where they can fish, how much and of what, farmes subsidies are doled out centrally and economic regeneration is generated by money coming from the centre. Most countries are in the european exchange rate mechinism and over half are in the Eurozone and a number who arent are in the process of moving towards joining in the next decade.
Because of all these point I really do think splitting the EU into a Eurozone and non eurozone civs would be a bad move. I would even sacrifice UK independence to keep the continental EU intact

EDIT: Regarding Turkey, happy to see her become independent and not too fussed about losing Sri Lanka either :)

Mattygerst
Jan 24, 2009, 12:53 AM
Just playing devil's advocate for the fun of it...

Why not just up the civ list a lot, make each country in Europe...give them the correct relations, etc...

What happens, in real life, if the resources start dwindling crazily (since we are discussing attempting to make resources disappear over time in this mod), and one of the more powerful countries in Europe decides that its time to expand borders to capture more resources to maintain their population?...

I bet in 1925-1930+ no one would have/could have predicted the rath of Hitler's war in Europe...

Who is to say that it can't happen again with oil/natural gas reserves projected to be depleted by as soon as 2050-2100?...

Lots of things can happen in the future...why take out any possibilities?...who could've projected the USA becoming truly a pre-emptive first strike country and not a reactive country?...Resources start dwindling, and people start clamoring for help...don't be so surprised to see a tyrannical USA going full-board into the middle east (already into Pakistan to surround Iran)...

Maybe a leader in the UK will give patriotic rise to nationalism ferver to re-build the empire...

Nothing is impossible...why not simply end the argument and simply build each of the Euro countries - yet simply give them the relations/pacts that represent their Eurozone nature in today's world while leaving open all possibilities that come with frenzied human behavior in times of crisis that may very well truly approaching in our childrens children's days?

Never under-estimate the feeling and use of Nationalism by leaders in a time of panic and crisis!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
(Not at all that I agree with this video 100%, although it does have some creedence and is an interesting watch to those who have the brain power to actually understand mathematics (and this video just adds steam to my playing devil's advocate)) - so please don't bog me down into taking that video as an end-all-be-all. Just having fun with you guys while trying to make my argument seem more valid.

sheep21
Jan 24, 2009, 12:56 AM
http://williamthecoroner.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/istock_can-of-worms.jpg

DVS
Jan 24, 2009, 01:56 AM
@Mattygerst - no way, not for now anyway. We'll see how it works with 50 civs first. We agreed on the EU a long time ago.

Genghis_Kai
Jan 24, 2009, 02:56 AM
OK. I start to understand more about the difference of opinion on the EU issue. I feel that the consensus is to keep the entire EU but just excluding UK. So I won't suggest to minimize it to the Eurozone any more. (i.e. to pull out Poland, Sweden and Balkan states )

On the other hand, I think grouping UK, Norway and Turkey to be called NATO is not as popular. Excluding UK can still give us a EU with about 90% of the actual size; the suggested NATO combination probably represent only 10% of the actual size. This is very misleading. There are only 3 countries left, I suggest we might as well just keep them independent.

Other than the NATO issue, don't forget there are many gray area in Africa, Asia and Latin America that we will need to consider later. But let me look further into that before I raise them here.

ianinsane
Jan 24, 2009, 03:33 AM
I'm not sure (and honestly never was) what the idea behind Sri Lanka is. As you said, DVS, it's because of the War between government and LTTE. But what will the effect in our game be? We'll have a one-city-civ, constantly fighting spawning Barbarians on 3 island tiles without significant international involvement? That doesn't add too much flavor IMO...
So I'd say make Turkey independent, make Sri Lanka a Minor Nation. It could be interesting to have Turkey in, muslim country with good relationships to Israel, defensive pact with NATO countries, trying to join the EU.

Well, well...that truly is Pandora's Box.

DVS
Jan 24, 2009, 03:33 AM
I agree about Turkey, but should we use another slot for Norway or just make it minor?

We can call our NATO civ UK, I don't care. It should still probably control the non-EU Balkans.

ianinsane
Jan 24, 2009, 03:40 AM
I agree about Turkey, but should we use another slot for Norway or just make it minor?

We can call our NATO civ UK, I don't care. It should still probably control the non-EU Balkans.

I'd have no problem with making Norway & Iceland minor.
How many cities are there in non-EU Balkans (Albania + the former Yugoslavian states excluding Slovenia)? We could "balkanize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization)" them, too. Making them Minor nations, giving only Belgrad/Serbia to Russia...struggling with EU cultural influence.

BTW I just checked it. Croatia and Albania are not yet NATO members. They'll be joining in April 2009, though.

MasterOfDomain
Jan 25, 2009, 07:11 AM
I am fine with the idea of having the UK as a seperate country, but grouping it with some Balkan States that don't fit anywhere else is a bit silly to me. I think the Balkan States need to be grouped or vassaled to other civs to avoid this problem.

Genghis_Kai
Jan 25, 2009, 08:39 AM
If we are keeping the same density as in the 1940 scenario, the cities in the Balkans are:

Tirana
Zagreb
Belgrade
Sofia
Thessaloniki
Athens
Iraklion

Bahmo
Jan 27, 2009, 02:55 PM
Now that I have the Civics done, it's time to suggest my advice about what countries should be set to at the start of the game. At the top of the collumn will be the Civ name, beneath on the left will be the Civic category (Religion has been replaced with media), and on the right will be civic name:
America
Government: Presidential
Legal: Internationalism
Labor: Organized
Economy: Deregulated
Media: Corporate

China
Government: Technocracy
Legal: Martial Law
Labor: Collective
Economy: Corporatist
Media: State-Censored

North Korea
Government: Totalitarian
Legal: Isolationism
Labor: Collective
Economy: Communist
Media: State-Run

Russia
Government: Presidential
Legal: Confederacy
Labor: Emancipation
Economy: Corporatist
Media: State-Run

Latin-American Socialist Allies
Government: Caesardom
Legal: Internationalism
Labor: Organized
Economy: Communist
Media: State-Run

Saudi Arabia
Government: Caesardom
Legal: Isolationism
Labor: Tribalism
Economy: Corporatist
Media: State-Censored

DVS
Jan 27, 2009, 06:35 PM
What is Caesardom?

sheep21
Jan 27, 2009, 06:36 PM
was thinking that.

Bahmo
Jan 27, 2009, 06:42 PM
I split both dictatorships and representative democratic governments into two sorts. Caesardome is closer to someone like Napoleon, or of course, Julius Caesar, that is, somebody whose regime is not democratic, but still rose to power because his people wanted him to, and stays in power by continuing his obligations to the people; whereas totalitarian government is more along the line of Kim Jong Il; that is, it doesn't respond to what its people think, it forces them to think how it wants.

Bahmo
Jan 28, 2009, 02:33 PM
Mexico
Government: Presidential
Legal: Darwinism
Labor: Tribalism
Economy: Deregulated
Media: State-Censored

Israel
Government: Presidential/Parliamentary (can somebody look that up for me?)
Legal: Martial Law
Labor: Professional
Economy: Deregulated
Media: State Censored

DVS
Jan 28, 2009, 02:37 PM
I think Saudi Arabia should have the more extreme dictaroship, they are in power only thanks to fear and guns. They certainly don't have the same type of government as Cuba.

In regards to the Socialist Allies civ, I'm wondering if we should change it to a more democratic one. Yes Cuba is part, and Castro is the leader, so that certainly cries Caesordom. But the other countries have among the most representative democracies in the world.

First problem caused by our artificial unions. The only things the countries in the union have in common is that they are socialist, and allies. :-(

DVS
Jan 28, 2009, 02:38 PM
Could you post all the civics? If you'd like help with these, people need to know their options.

Edit: and could you explain the Darwinism legal civic to me as well please?

DVS
Jan 28, 2009, 02:39 PM
Israel is a Parliamentary democracy.

DVS
Jan 28, 2009, 02:45 PM
P.S. I think you are posting these in the wrong thread, this is putting Kai's map thread way off course.

Let's continue in the Final civ list (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=301906) thread, if you don't mind. Or the civics thread.

Plus: I love your button, I'll put the border on it and include it. There are two, which one do you want me to use?

DVS
Jan 28, 2009, 05:39 PM
@ Genghis_Kai: just FYI, NikNaks and myself are both aware of and taking steps towards ironing out the errors that were revealed bringing the scenario you sent me into the mod.

Plus we just have to finish updating the SDK, and then I will edit and compile it to allow for 55 civs. Should not be long, early next week at the latest I hope. I will PM you when it is finished.

Bahmo
Jan 29, 2009, 06:04 PM
Time for a major bunch of cutting and pasting here! (And was post-stacking like that really necessary?)

I think Saudi Arabia should have the more extreme dictaroship, they are in power only thanks to fear and guns. They certainly don't have the same type of government as Cuba.

You're probably right. Totalitarian may be a good idea to adopt instead of Isolationism to replicate Saudi Arabia, because they certainly aren't isolationists in terms of how they get their money.

In regards to the Socialist Allies civ, I'm wondering if we should change it to a more democratic one. Yes Cuba is part, and Castro is the leader, so that certainly cries Caesordom. But the other countries have among the most representative democracies in the world.

First problem caused by our artificial unions. The only things the countries in the union have in common is that they are socialist, and allies. :-(

Again, you're probably right, although I don't know who exactly is included besides Cuba. If we're making an organization stand in for states, though, we could use a democratic Civic to represent the chairman elected by the member states.


Plus: I love your button, I'll put the border on it and include it. There are two, which one do you want me to use?

The only difference is that Knowledge.dds is in color, so please use that one.


Edit: and could you explain the Darwinism legal civic to me as well please?

Darwinism is exactly what it sounds like; a lawless situation where only brute force determines hierarchy. It's necessary to mention that I wanted to draw a bit of a line between truly failed states, which are given to the barbarians, and just very corrupt, backwards and/or troubled states like Mexico, so my means was the first civic in each category. Unlike the core game, all of these are completely free, to emphasize that they result from governments that are too weak to effectively run their countries. Also unlike the core game, they do give some ironic bonuses; usually extra experience, since the people are used to fighting, but the benefits are outweighed by many other detractions that you also wouldn't find in the main game. I'll post all of the current civics and their effects in the Civics thread a little later on.

Genghis_Kai
Jan 30, 2009, 04:41 AM
The last few days I have look more closely at the scenario, basically down to every individual city. I will now make a more mature suggestion of civ choices. To begin with, let me just say a bit about how I come up with the choices. Starting off from the two principles DVS suggested earlier, these are the principles I have used:

#1 - Not creating artificial unions.
#2 - Not creating any fake superpowers.
#3 - Try to include all those small nations that are very distinct in world politics (Israel, Palestine, Syria, N Korea, Taiwan and Georgia). These nations can have less than 3 cities (the threshold I've set).
#4 - Other than those nations in #3, include those nations that can fit at least 3 cities on GEM.

Note that my decision is mainly based on the number of cities then based on the GDP or the population because in the game ultimately, strength is mainly determined by the number of cities.
So this is my suggestion:

New Civs:
Norway(Split from NATO)
Turkey(Split from NATO)
Mongolia(It occupy 4 cities on GEM easily)
Bangladesh (7th largest nation in population. Too big to miss)
New Zealand(It occupy more than 3 cities and I don't want to merge it with Australia - violating #1)

Deleted Civs:
Permenant Neutrality - combined into Minor nations. Not much point to have them seperate since they should cause the same effect diplomatically. Assuming we are going to make minor nations unplayable and at peace with everyone by default.
Belarus - won't fit 3 cities.
Sri Lanka - won't fit 3 cities.
Venezuela - combined into the Bolivarian Americas

Name changed Civs:
United Kingdom - replace NATO
Morocco - replace Independent African States
West African States (A realistic union - here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_African_Economic_and_Monetary_Union#West_Afri can_Economic_and_Monetary_Union)) - replace Nigeria
Central African States (A realistic union - here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_and_Monetary_Community_of_Central_Africa# Economic_and_Monetary_Community_of_Central_Africa) ) - replace Angola
East African States (A realistic union - here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Community)) - replace African Union
South African States (A realistic union - here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_African_Development_Community)) - replace South Africa
Arab States of the Gulf (A realistic union - here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_states_of_the_Persian_Gulf))- replace Saudi Arabia
Bolivarian Americas (A realistic union - here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alternative_for_the_Americas)) - replace Latin America Socialist Alllies


There will still be 48 civ. The civ list is as follow (~number of cities):

European Union (~63)
United Kingdom(~15)
Norway(~4)
Russia(~40)
Ukraine(~4)
Turkey(~6)
Georgia(~2)

Morocco(~4)
Algeria(~5)
Egypt(~4)
Sudan(~4)
Ethiopia(~5)
West African States (~10)
Central African States(~8)
South African States(~9)
East African States (~6)

Arab States of the Gulf (~8)
Israel(~2)
Palestine(~2)
Syria(~2)
Iran(~7)
Pakistan(~4)
Bangladesh(~3)
India(~17)

Kazakhstan(~5)
Mongolia(~4)
China(~50)
Taiwan(~2)
North Korea(~2)
South Korea(~3)
Japan(~10)

Myanmar(~3)
Thailand(~3)
Vietnam(~3)
Philippines(~5)
Indonesia(~13)
Australia(~21)
New Zealand(~4)

Canada(~25)
United States(~53)
Mexico(~9)
Bolivarian Americas (~7)
Colombia(~3)
Peru(~4)
Brazil(~15)
Argentina(~6)
Chile(~4)

Minor nations - not playable and by default at peace with everyone.
(Failed States) - not included in the civ count



The biggest change is the break up of Africa Union into the sub unions. So the largest Africa civ has only 10 cities, down from ~35 cities in Africa Union.


Comments Welcome.

Genghis_Kai
Jan 30, 2009, 04:50 AM
Some details:

Nation (includes)

European Union (EU excluding UK)
United Kingdom (Jamaica, Belize, Bahamas, Trinidad)
Norway
Russia (Belarus)
Ukraine
Turkey
Georgia

Morocco
Algeria (Tunisia)
Egypt
Sudan
Ethiopia
West African States (Burkina Faso, Ghana, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo.)
Central African States (Angola, Cameroon, São Tomé, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and DR Congo)
South African States (Botswana, Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa)
East African States (Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi)

Arab States of the Gulf (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar and United Arab Emirates)
Israel
Palestine
Syria
Iran
Pakistan
Bangladesh
India

Kazakhstan
Mongolia
China
Taiwan
North Korea
South Korea
Japan

Myanmar
Thailand
Vietnam
Philippines
Indonesia
Australia (Papul New Guinea and some pacific islands)
New Zealand (some pacific islands)

Canada
United States (Iraq, Afghanistan)
Mexico
Colombia
Bolivarian Americas (Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua)
Peru
Brazil
Argentina
Chile

Minor Nations (Iceland, Switzerland, Croatia, Albania, Serbia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Libya, Cape Verde, Madagascar, Seychelles, Lebanon, Jordon, Yemen, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Laos, Cambodia, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Haiti, Guyana, Suriname, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay)

Failed States (Mauritania, Guinea, Côte d'Ivoire, part of Mali, part of Niger, Central African Republic, Chad, part of DR Congo, Eritrea, Somalia, Darfur, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, East Timor)

JEELEN
Jan 30, 2009, 06:07 AM
Comments Welcome.

Looking good.;)

ianinsane
Jan 30, 2009, 08:02 AM
I don't feel very good about all those African Unions. Although I agree that it is the right thing to do to weaken or abolish the AU civ. I'll look into it later this day and maybe I can think of a different approach. Maybe I'd feel better about it if we just named the West African States "Nigeria", the Central "Angola", the East "Kenya" and the South "South Africa"...

Combining Venezuela and it's allies is an OK thing to do, I guess. But I'd include Ecuador and Paraguay, too. Maybe call the whole thing "Venezuela"?

I think it's strange to make Mongolia an own civ. It might be large in size but it's international importance is near to zero. Can't we raze the few Mongolian cities, add to Russia and China one city each that is close to the Mongolian border and expand their cultural borders?

The grouping of the Arab States of the Gulf is OK but I'd rather call it "Saudi-Arabia".

Bangladesh deserves it's own civ, I think.

I'm not sure about Norway and New Zealand. Are they really important enough? We could make them both Minor States and use the slots to further diversify Africa. If we can add two more African civs I think it should be Libya and Zimbabwe.

Genghis_Kai
Jan 30, 2009, 09:54 AM
I personally don't mind either we call them with names like "West Africa States" or just "Nigeria" as long as the names are consistent. Since we have EU in our list already, for consistency, I think it is better to call them "West Africa States" and etc.

For the Bolivarian Americas (short for "Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas), it doesn't include Ecuador and Paraguay.

I think Mongolia, Norway and New Zealand are important enough on the map. They occupy significant space on GEM for us not to ignore their existence. Like I said, when it comes down to playability, it is the number of cities we can use to represent them that matters. Why make a 4 city nation as minor while choosing a 1 or 2 city nation as playable?

ianinsane
Jan 30, 2009, 10:45 AM
I personally don't mind either we call them with names like "West Africa States" or just "Nigeria" as long as the names are consistent. Since we have EU in our list already, for consistency, I think it is better to call them "West Africa States" and etc.

The difference here is, I think, that the EU at least sometimes is acting as this entity internationally wheres I've never heard of these African Unions, except the ECOWAS. To most people (including me) these will cross the line to creating fake unions. So I vote for calling them Nigeria, South Africa, Angola and Kenya.

For the Bolivarian Americas (short for "Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas), it doesn't include Ecuador and Paraguay.

OK, if you take only the real ALBA then you're right, of course. Might be that we'll have to assign Paraguay and Ecuador to ALBA in the World 2010 scenario. :D

I think Mongolia, Norway and New Zealand are important enough on the map. They occupy significant space on GEM for us not to ignore their existence. Like I said, when it comes down to playability, it is the number of cities we can use to represent them that matters. Why make a 4 city nation as minor while choosing a 1 or 2 city nation as playable?

I might be convinced to Norway and New Zealand. Looking at their GDP ranking in the world...
But Mongolia? I say we'd include some state instead that actually has some international importance, even if it's smaller. Like Zimbabwe or DR Congo. What's everyone else's opinion?

ianinsane
Jan 30, 2009, 11:53 AM
OK, I did some thinking again. Now I quite like your suggestion for Africa. (except the Union names) Here's a map of your suggestion. I hope I got it right.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=201997&stc=1&d=1233337538

Still, there are some changes I suggest.
1. Assign the yet unassigned states (light grey in the upper map) to the surrounding states. That means Gambia, Guinea-Beissau & Benin to Western African civ, Swaziland & Lesotho to South African civ, Rep. Congo to Central African civ. But probably these states don't have any cities anyway.
2. Make Djibouti minor nation.
3. Make Zambia, Malawi, Niger & Mali minor nations. These aren't failed states at all.
4. Make Libya its own civ. As I said, I'd instead sacrifice Mongolia.
5. Call Western African Civ "Nigeria", Central African "Angola", Eastern African "Kenya" and Southern African "South Africa".

It would look like this:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=201998&stc=1&d=1233337538

DVS
Jan 30, 2009, 02:28 PM
Ok, if these changes are finalized let me know, I will make them.

I like your ideas, I appreciate the work you've put in to it, but I don't like how Africa will look now. Basically cut in to 4 nations that will all have good sized, continuous territory. Our old idea was far from perfect and needed changing, but, this new way, Africa will be united into 4 strong powers. Our original idea was to make it as fractured and split as possible. I still don't see why the old AU had to have 35 cities (why more couldn't be minor or failed I mean).

Edit: What about Libya and Zimbabwe? Certainly we need something like the Independence states civ to cover these civs?

But if that's the way you think it works best, let's go for it. Perhaps people can suggest what leaders to use for those new groups. :-)

DVS
Jan 30, 2009, 02:39 PM
ianinsane, what are you using to make those maps?

DVS
Jan 30, 2009, 02:52 PM
Maybe we could keep your unions, but add Nigeria and Chad as independent civs?

I for one am fine with New Zealand and Mongolia or Norway being minor, but you are obviously the expert with the map, so whatever you decide on I'm sure will be fine.

P.S. The suggestion someone made to call these unions by the names of countries, I don't think makes much sense. I like Bolivarian Americans especially, great name. That one certainly should include Ecuador and Paraguay though IMO, I don't see how these ones are better put elsewhere.

ianinsane
Jan 30, 2009, 03:14 PM
ianinsane, what are you using to make those maps?

LOL...I just had my sisters netbook, so I took that blank African map from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BlankMap-Africa.png) and used Microsoft Paint to fill in colors...

DVS
Jan 30, 2009, 03:16 PM
ahh ok thanks, good map, that works.

Joecoolyo
Jan 30, 2009, 04:03 PM
Wow, this is a big overhaul so late in the game... I'm not getting into specifics but I believe anything that makes Africa very fractured will work. As long as Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, and some others are independent. Nigeria, because it is one of the fastest emerging economies and powers in Africa. South Africa because just how culturally different it is from most of the continent. And Egypt because of its large influence over the Middle East.

Norway, Mongolia, and New Zealand are defiantly independent or split up. Bangladesh should be its own civ. Arab States of the Gulf should be called Saudi Arabia. And the Bolivarian Americas is a lot nicer and more realistic sounding name than Latin American Socialist Allies. :goodjob:

Genghis_Kai
Jan 30, 2009, 09:49 PM
Something I need to further explain.

@DVS: In my proposal, each of these four sub-Sahara African Unions will be surrounded by, encircling many failed states. They are definitely not in a good sized territory.

@ianinsane: Thanks for your map. It is almost accurate. Some nations I didn't include because they are too small to have one city on the map. On the other hand, some nations have more than one city that half of it is within a union and the other half is failed state. These include Mali, Niger and DR Congo. I've checked each African nation to find out whether there are military conflicts right now!

You are quite right about Malawi and Zambia. But I was thinking these nations are so poor that it is better to group them to failed states rather than the minor nations (which includes nations such as Switzerlands!)

Genghis_Kai
Jan 30, 2009, 11:03 PM
Based on ianiniane's map, this is what it actually look like in my proposal.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=202055&stc=1&d=1233377612

I still recommend to keep Mongolia because of it's size. We should consider all of these aspects: GDP, population, land mass and military size. Mongolia happens to excel in one aspect - 17th largest land mass on Earth. Moreover, Mongolia is one of the original 18 civs in CIV.

If we really want to add more African states, since we have some rooms to add a few more civs, I would suggest to just add Libya (and give Tunisia to it) and may be Madagascar by itself. But then we should also add Malaysia.

I don't mind either we call the African civs by the Union's name or the largest nation's name (btw, East African States should be Tanzania). DVS, your call.

Please note that, we don't need to create a lot of new leaderheads in my proposal, except Norway, Turkey, Mongolia, Bangladesh and New Zealand. All the African Unions can replace existing civ (for example West African States use Nigeria; East Africa States use African Union - the leaderhead happens to be the president of Tanzania!)

DVS
Jan 30, 2009, 11:49 PM
Ok, let's try it that way. You've sold me on Mongolia, Madagascar I think we can keep as a minor nation.

Do you think the central states will be too strong? Maybe we can use minor nations and failed states to weaken these unions further, if needed. First of all Somalia, I think is the modern definition of a failed state, so I think its cities should be Barbarian. Chad is also pretty messed up right now, and having them as something else would break up the continuity of the central state's land mass, if that is something we want. Zimbabwe as well I think should be something different, that state clearly functions differently at the present time than say South Africa.

JEELEN
Jan 31, 2009, 01:41 AM
Well, since we're commenting anyway:


Arab States of the Gulf (Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar and United Arab Emirates)
Israel
Palestine
Syria
Iran
Pakistan
Bangladesh
India


Would it not be possible to separate the emirates from Saudi Arabia/Yemen (you seem to have left that out)? Especially the UAE seem on a different course politically/economically than religious conservative Saudi Arabia. (Just a thought.)

DVS
Jan 31, 2009, 01:47 AM
I was thinking the same. Maybe Saudi Arabia on its own, and a union for the rest? Keeping them together would also form a new civ in the mid east that dominates Iran and would be unrealistically close to competing with Israel. We hadn't discussed the other gulf states much, I always assume minor nations for most with the USA controlling UAE, and possibly Kuwait and Qutar.

Also, Genghis Kai, the reason we split up the neutral states and the minor nations, was (1) to avoid making the minor nations stronger than anyone, and (2) we were going to make it impossible for anyone to declare war on the neutral states. I would prefer to keep it that way unless you are strongly against it.

Genghis_Kai
Jan 31, 2009, 05:42 AM
@DVS: if you check more closely my proposal, you should realize Somalia, Chad and Zambabwe are all classified as Failed states already. I have also listed the number of cities of the four African unions. West (10), Central (8), South (9) and East (6) - Central isn't really particularly strong. I think what we need to do is to make alot of Barbarian units to surround these states initially such that these unions will be busy in fighting like in reality.

@JEELEN: Well, Arab States of the Gulf is a real union and it doesn't include Yemen. If we split it, we are making artificial unions.

The Arab states of the Gulf is having only 8 cities in total (4 for Saudi, 1 Kuwait, 1 Qatar, 1 UAE and 1 Oman and can't fit Bahrain). Iran is having 7 cities and Turkey 6. I don't think the Arab is overly dominating Middle East.

Genghis_Kai
Jan 31, 2009, 05:47 AM
About Neutral states. Do you really want to make Neutral states can not be declared war upon on? I personally feel this is quite unrealistic. It isn't a real union either.

I think combining it with minor nation has already given enough protection to those neutral states - that anyone declaring war on it will make it declare war on all the minor nations at once. You can also hard code some diplomatic penalty to all other nations when someone declare war on minor nations.

JEELEN
Jan 31, 2009, 06:32 AM
@DVS: if you check more closely my proposal, you should realize Somalia, Chad and Zambabwe are all classified as Failed states already. I have also listed the number of cities of the four African unions. West (10), Central (8), South (9) and East (6) - Central isn't really particularly strong. I think what we need to do is to make alot of Barbarian units to surround these states initially such that these unions will be busy in fighting like in reality.

@JEELEN: Well, Arab States of the Gulf is a real union and it doesn't include Yemen. If we split it, we are making artificial unions.

The Arab states of the Gulf is having only 8 cities in total (4 for Saudi, 1 Kuwait, 1 Qatar, 1 UAE and 1 Oman and can't fit Bahrain). Iran is having 7 cities and Turkey 6. I don't think the Arab is overly dominating Middle East.

Is Yemen included in the Somalia/Failed States group, added to Saudi Arabia or just not present? I was thinking that Arabia could just be split into Saudi Arabia and Gulf State emirates (4 against 5 cities seems reasonable, and Arabia hasn't the military pretensions Iran or Turkey has; its power is more economic. Also, while the Saudis represent conservative Sunnism - the mirates do not -, several islamic fundis seem to have emerged from there, making it a double-edged sword. The emirates are more moderate and interested in real economic development. The split would, IMO, be realistic.)

Genghis_Kai
Jan 31, 2009, 07:34 AM
Yemen is a minor nation. My fault, should of said that clearer.

We can just have Saudi Arabia and then the rest minor nations. But grouping the 5 minor Arabian states together without Saudi Arabia seems too artificial.

MasterOfDomain
Jan 31, 2009, 12:04 PM
Thanks a lot for that Kai, it's really cleared up everything for someone like myself who hasn't seen the map(s).

Adhesive86
Jan 31, 2009, 01:06 PM
Having played GEM quite a bit I'd back Kai in terms of not creating artificial unions where possible, especially in the Middle East. It seems that where you've got to so far is fantastic though.

My only other suggestions would be that if we have Georgia then why no Belarus? I notice that in Europe we seem to have loaded with anti Russian nations (Georgia, Ukraine) but no Belarus. Belarus would be a useful illustration of local Russian influence in that area.

South Africa is really quite distinct from the rest of Africa and is probably a nuclear power, but there is a legitimate union there.

I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but isn't a representation of Afghanistan and Iraq as permanent American territory a little unreaslistic? Why not vassals, with not overly good relations and distinct civics?

Anyway, good work guys, I won't labour my points as i realise i've come in late in the day!

ianinsane
Jan 31, 2009, 02:38 PM
Here's another compromise proposal on Africa:

- Basically keeping the Unions and the structure proposed by Genghis Kai
- To further fragment the Unions we can dissociate the second most important state from each union and assign it to Minor States. IMO this would be Ghana from Western Africans/Nigeria, Gabon from Central Africans/Angola, Botswana from Southern Africans/South Africa and Kenya from Eastern Africans/Tanzania.

It would then look like this:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=202144&stc=1&d=1233434256

Then we could either add Libya as its own civ or leave it as a Minor State.

What do you think, Genghis Kai?

DVS
Jan 31, 2009, 05:46 PM
I do like having neutral states, yes. You shouldn't just be able to invade Switzerland and Costa Rica the same way you could invade say, Yemen.

Joecoolyo
Jan 31, 2009, 10:05 PM
I like it, the more fractured, the more realistic it is :)

JEELEN
Jan 31, 2009, 10:47 PM
I'm sure this has been discussed to death, but isn't a representation of Afghanistan and Iraq as permanent American territory a little unreaslistic? Why not vassals, with not overly good relations and distinct civics?

Good point - especially with independent elections this year in Iraq.

DVS
Jan 31, 2009, 11:09 PM
Another topic that has been done to death in other threads.

...because the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't exist without the American occupation. What would be unrealistic, would be allowing the USA to move troops out, but keep them as vassals with their current governments in place.

Genghis_Kai
Feb 01, 2009, 03:20 AM
OK, let me propose again, based on the my original suggestion on post #159 and #160. In summary, we will add 4 more civs (total 52 civs). These are: Neutral States, Belarus, Nigeria and Angola. Let me explain them one by one.

On Neutral States: Since DVS, our :king: of this mod want this back, lets add it back, and it will consist of only 3 cities, one for each - Switzerland, Costa Rica and Turkmenistan (forget about Liechtenstein, is not going to fit).

On Belarus: Seems like there are so many of you like to have Belarus back. Well, if we are not too fuss about have another civ, I will add it back and try to make it to have at least 2 cities (other than just Minsk).

On Africa: I think the main concern about Africa is that it doesn't fragment Africa enough. Follow on from the idea of ianinsane's on post #183, here is what I will propose again for Africa, trying to balance the goal for not creating Artificial unions and trying to fragment Africa further.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=202197&stc=1&d=1233478151

For West Africa, it is further broken up into the two trade unions that have integrated their currency, the CFA franc and Eco. The former is already in use, the later is said to be implemented in 2009. See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Community_of_West_African_States). For simplicity, these two unions will be called West African States and Nigeria respectively.

Similarly for Central Africa, the Central African States which are using CFA franc are grouped together as Central African States, while Angola and DR Congo are grouped to called Angola. This is realistic I think because DR Congo's government is heavily influenced by Angola.

For South Africa, I will just take out Mozambique as a minor nation, then call the remaining simply as South Africa - Botswana and Namibia are heavily influenced by South Africa in reality.

And no change for East African States.

Then the list of African civs is as follow:

Nation (number of cities):
Morocco(4)
Algeria(5)
Egypt(4)
Sudan(4)
Ethiopia(5)
West African States (5)
Nigeria (6)
Central African States(4)
Angola (4)
South Africa (6)
East African States (6)

I think this is quite well balanced now. But feel free to further comment on.

ianinsane
Feb 01, 2009, 03:30 AM
I love it. Great work, Ganghis Kai! :)

Genghis_Kai
Feb 01, 2009, 03:32 AM
The updated list (52 civs):

Nation (includes)

European Union (EU excluding UK)
United Kingdom (Jamaica, Belize, Bahamas, Trinidad)
Norway
Russia
Belarus
Ukraine
Turkey
Georgia

Morocco
Algeria (Tunisia)
Egypt
Sudan
Ethiopia
West African States (Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo.)
Nigeria (Ghana, Liberia and Sierra Leone)
Central African States (Cameroon, São Tomé, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon)
Angola (DR Congo)
South Africa (Botswana and Namibia)
East African States (Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi)

Saudi Arabia
Israel
Palestine
Syria
Iran
Pakistan
Bangladesh
India

Kazakhstan
Mongolia
China
Taiwan
North Korea
South Korea
Japan

Myanmar
Thailand
Vietnam
Philippines
Indonesia
Australia (Papul New Guinea and some pacific islands)
New Zealand (some pacific islands)

Canada
United States (Iraq, Afghanistan)
Mexico
Colombia
Bolivarian Americas (Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua)
Peru
Brazil
Argentina
Chile

Neutral States (Switzerland, Turkmenistan and Costa Rica)

Minor States (Iceland, Croatia, Albania, Serbia, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Libya, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Madagascar, Seychelles, Lebanon, Jordon, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Yemen, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Laos, Cambodia, Guatemala, Haiti, Guyana, Suriname, Ecuador, Paraguay, Uruguay)

Failed States (Mauritania, Guinea, Côte d'Ivoire, part of Mali, part of Niger, Central African Republic, Chad, part of DR Congo, Eritrea, Somalia, Darfur, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Uzbekistan, East Timor)

DVS
Feb 01, 2009, 03:42 AM
Perfect, looks good. Let's try it that way. I will update the civs tomorrow. Great work Genghis. :-)

sheep21
Feb 01, 2009, 06:40 AM
im loving Africa in post #188 Kai, nice Job :D

One thing though, are we going to represent these ingame:
For the UK:
British Overseas Territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territories)

For the EU Civ:
French overseas departments and territories Overseas Collectivities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_overseas_departments_and_territories#Overse as_Collectivities)
Netherlands Antilles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Antilles)

Many of these islands\territories are important military bases (Falklands, British Sovereign Bases, Gibraltar, Ascension Island & Diego Garcia for the UK alone) and also provide flash points for possible conflicts with local neighbors (i.e The Falklands War) and diplomatic stumbling blocks (Gibraltar for Spain & the UK).

Genghis_Kai
Feb 01, 2009, 08:40 AM
im loving Africa in post #188 Kai, nice Job :D

One thing though, are we going to represent these ingame:
For the UK:
British Overseas Territories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_overseas_territories)

For the EU Civ:
French overseas departments and territories Overseas Collectivities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_overseas_departments_and_territories#Overse as_Collectivities)
Netherlands Antilles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_Antilles)

Many of these islands\territories are important military bases (Falklands, British Sovereign Bases, Gibraltar, Ascension Island & Diego Garcia for the UK alone) and also provide flash points for possible conflicts with local neighbors (i.e The Falklands War) and diplomatic stumbling blocks (Gibraltar for Spain & the UK).

Some of them are already covered while some aren't:

Falklands - included under UK
Cyprus's British Sovereign Base - too close to Nicosia, which is at the moment under EU. Should I make Nicosia own by UK?
Gibraltar - included under UK
Ascension Island - not included yet. I can add it to the map
Diego Garcia - not included yet. I can add it to the map
Curacao - included under EU

But there are lots of islands I haven't covered and I am not familiar with modern military bases. So please pin point more specific islands that are strategic military bases and I can include them, if possible.

TheLastOne36
Feb 01, 2009, 08:42 AM
Just a heads up, Iceland's economy collapsed and they want to join the EU and Brussels said they'll be able to join sometime around 2011-12. You might as well just include them in the EU.

sheep21
Feb 01, 2009, 10:23 AM
well Bermuda for the UK, a very profitable territory


the thing with France is unlike the UK she doesnt have afew big deployments she has many smaller ones instead around the world. Fort-de-France in Martinique springs to mind.

hers a list i made in the final civ thread:
looks good here
may I make afew small suggestions:
NATO\UK should control:
-Gibraltar - important choke point for med and source of friction with spain\EU
-Falkands Islands - source of friction with Argentina
-Indian Ocean Territory (Diego Garcia) - important joint UK\US Air and Naval Base
See Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Ocean_Territory

-Accension Island - important air base
-British Virgin Islands
-Cayman Islands
-Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia - important Land, Sea and Air base

The EU should control
-French overseas territories
--French Guiana
--French Polynesia
--Guadeloupe
--Martinique
--Réunion
--Mayotte
--Saint Pierre and Miquelon
--Wallis and Futuna
--New Caledonia
-Spain
--Ceuta
--Melilla
--Peñón de Vélez de la Gomera
--Peñón de Alhucemas
--Islas Chafarinas
-Dutch
--Netherlands Antilles
--Aruba
-Denmark
--Greenland
--Faroe Islands


not all of these island possessions need to be included, but some do. Also, Diego Garcia is a British possessions and base, not American, surely the two having open boarders would be fine and allow the US to use the island?

Not all of those have to be included particularly if very minor and they clash with current independent civs already nearby. They will just give the player alot of flexibility as to where to deploy units\influence local affairs. (aswell as fill up the HUUUUUUUUUGE and empty pacific!).

Regarding Cyprus, I leave it down to you, there are seven to eight thousand British personnel permanently deployed on the island and it makes a great staging post for the Middle East. For playability I say give it to the UK, the EU have Crete, Malta & Sardinia anyway.

Hope that list helps :)

Genghis_Kai
Feb 01, 2009, 10:31 PM
I wonder whether we should use Forts to represent most of these military bases as I think it is a better resemble than a city. But I am not familiar with the functions of Fort in CIV. I only know that it allows to base units, including ships and aircrafts, and increase their defense bonus. But I am not sure whether it will have some special effect on culture. These are my questions if anyone could answer:

1) If a fort is located on an island in the middle of no where, does that mean everyone can use it? Even if say US has got some units on it, and then Russia, which hasn't got an open border agreement with US and neither at war with US, can still use the fort?

2) If a fort is located within someone's culture sphere, does it mean it will kick out all the units located on the fort if the owner has not got an open border with the culture?

Preferably, the answer would be NO to both 1 & 2.

JEELEN
Feb 02, 2009, 01:31 AM
1) Forts in neutral territory are neutral; so it depends on the unit(s) present first.

2) Forts within a culture belomg to that culture.

In general: there's a separate modcomp Forts w/culture borders available!

Genghis_Kai
Feb 02, 2009, 02:15 AM
1) Forts in neutral territory are neutral; so it depends on the unit(s) present first.

2) Forts within a culture belomg to that culture.

In general: there's a separate modcomp Forts w/culture borders available!

Thanks.

DVS, can we have the mod included?

DVS
Feb 02, 2009, 03:27 AM
Which mod is that?

ianinsane
Feb 02, 2009, 04:03 AM
Regarding Cyprus, I leave it down to you, there are seven to eight thousand British personnel permanently deployed on the island and it makes a great staging post for the Middle East. For playability I say give it to the UK, the EU have Crete, Malta & Sardinia anyway.


I say leave it to the EU. UK and EU will have a Defensive Pact and open borders so we can perfectly garrison the needed British units in Nicosia. Since it is a military base and no British production site that can actually produce military units this should be the most realistic solution.

ianinsane
Feb 02, 2009, 04:05 AM
Which mod is that?

I didn't try it...but is it this one? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=243427)

JEELEN
Feb 02, 2009, 06:28 AM
It is. DL here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=7077

In addition, this might be useful to fit all the civs scoreboardwise: http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=10972

DVS
Feb 02, 2009, 11:01 AM
Do we need this fort thing? For one I would like to see how the other mods we have that adjust culture work before adding more. But if we really need it, I'm sure it can be merged in.

Should we even be spending time focusing on realistic troop placement? Won't the AI move all the troops around on the first turn anyway?


Thanks JEELEN. I'm pretty sure, but not certain, that the scrolling scoreboard is already a part of WoC.

Genghis_Kai
Feb 02, 2009, 11:36 AM
I don't really mind. It is only a bonus. Regardless, I can still use forts to replace those cities on remote islands which are for military purposes only. This can reduce the number of cities a bit. It can't avoid however,someone 'stealing' other people's military base by sending a settler and build a city to replace the fort.

I think the initial placement of unit is relatively important, at least for those nations at war. I am sure the hard work you guys spent to build those new units deserve a bit of time invested on where they should locate instead of randomly allocating them.

sheep21
Feb 02, 2009, 01:05 PM
im happy for cyprus to be EU.

Kai is right about unit placement, there are hundreds of thousands of troops deployed around the world on peacekeeping missions, security, sovreignty patrols and fighting. At least 500,000 by my estimates and thats not insignificant. I can always make another list :p

DVS
Feb 02, 2009, 01:32 PM
ok good call guys. Just don't get your hopes up about the AI keeping troops in realistic places. For example, I suspect the USA will move its troops out of South Korea right away.

Maybe we should try to get that fort mod merged before we do unit placement... from the sounds of it, giving the USA a fort in South Korea would give them a tile with their culture, that the AI would defend? That's what that mod is for I guess?

Joecoolyo
Feb 02, 2009, 03:28 PM
With unit placement and army size we also have to think about the burden this may put on some people's computers. I mean, I tried to 1940 GEM scenario (think how many troops each country has in that!) and each turn (I took two before shutting it off) took around 5-10 minutes to load. We also want to make this game playable too, and sometimes reality has to sacrificed so the U.S.A. won't send its South Korean troops to conquer N. Korea or China on the second turn.

ianinsane
Feb 02, 2009, 03:38 PM
Did you reduce all graphics to minimum? At first I didn't and I had the same waiting times. Then I did and it doesn't take a minute now to load each turn.

DVS
Feb 02, 2009, 04:10 PM
Yes, make sure you have all graphics on low.

Our main scenario will be one that takes a minute or more between turns for most people, that much is for sure. There is no way to make what we are making and avoid that.

A second scenario will probably follow in time that will be smaller, and load faster.

Joecoolyo
Feb 02, 2009, 06:10 PM
Yes, make sure you have all graphics on low.

Our main scenario will be one that takes a minute or more between turns for most people, that much is for sure. There is no way to make what we are making and avoid that.

A second scenario will probably follow in time that will be smaller, and load faster.

Aw.... but I like the graphics high... it just turns so ugly without them...

Genghis_Kai
Feb 02, 2009, 09:05 PM
ok good call guys. Just don't get your hopes up about the AI keeping troops in realistic places. For example, I suspect the USA will move its troops out of South Korea right away.

Maybe we should try to get that fort mod merged before we do unit placement... from the sounds of it, giving the USA a fort in South Korea would give them a tile with their culture, that the AI would defend? That's what that mod is for I guess?

Thats exactly what I was thinking! If we can have forts that produce culture, we can make USA to have forts in South Korea, Okinawa, and many other places! That would be cool :D

Adhesive86
Feb 04, 2009, 05:23 AM
The latest Africa solution looks fantastic.

So does the 52 civ list!

I agree Cyprus to EU. There may be British troops there, but as it is only a staging post and not a production centre for the UK this is best represented by open borders and an EU city.

I also think it is a good idea to represent any large and/or strategic military bases, especially the likes of ascension and diego garcia. Seems you're already on that.

The issue about the US- Iraqi/Afghan ownership as described by DVS: Understandable in the short term that you don't want US troops pulling out, but in the long term surely the US isn't expecting to maintain ownership? Indeed US forces are actively working towards a pull out leaving independent, friendly governments are they not? They'd surely be vassals? Is it possible to write python for the nations to be granted independence representing ultimate realism?

Anyway, just because I don't agree doesn't mean i'm right. The mod looks fantastic.

DVS
Feb 04, 2009, 03:29 PM
Adhesive86, the USA can always make a vassal out of Iraq, by using BTS' colony feature on the city info screen! But if they do it too soon and remove too many of their troops, before ridding the region of barbarians, it will get overrun. I think this is perfectly realistic.

Also, since we have merged in the revolutions mod, there is a chance a new, hostile civ will form in Iraq, if the USA doesn't manage it properly.


"Indeed US forces are actively working towards a pull out leaving independent, friendly governments are they not?"

I haven't seen any evidence of this, other than talk on TV (which is usually the opposite of the truth). Anyway, that's another discussion, we are just going to try an represent what is happening RIGHT NOW, since predicting the future even slightly is very generally difficulty. So far the US has not reduced troops at all, they have only escalated the war.


"The latest Africa solution looks fantastic."

Yes it sure does, let's all thank Genghis for that!


P.S. Your sig makes me laugh. I almost got kicked off my hockey team as a child for pointing that out.

Mattygerst
Feb 04, 2009, 06:26 PM
Hehe...not to get too political:

But the USA just built an embassy in Iraq that is larger than the Vatican that will need permanent heavy-duty military presence. Not to mention the US-owned military installations. Also, we have a 25 year construction contract that is enforced with the military. I don't think the USA will be leaving quite as soon as you imagine, if ever (look at Korea).

DVS
Feb 04, 2009, 06:37 PM
Hehe...not to get too political:

But the USA just built an embassy in Iraq that is larger than the Vatican that will need permanent heavy-duty military presence. Not to mention the US-owned military installations. Also, we have a 25 year construction contract that is enforced with the military. I don't think the USA will be leaving quite as soon as you imagine, if ever (look at Korea).


...and then there is the oil deal they made last year. Think that will last without US troops? No chance. It is the exact same companies they threw out 30 years ago. lol

DVS
Feb 04, 2009, 08:02 PM
@Genghis_Kai: something I forgot in our PM conversation:

I am in the process of adding modern highways (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=280604) as a new route, in between roads and railroads. The idea is to have this route in developed countries, and the older roads more prominent in less developed ones. I hope this doesn't throw a monkey wrench into your road and railroad placement work.

For example; I was thinking Canada should have one major stretch of the modern highway from coast to coast, and to each major city, but the older roads elsewhere. The USA will have the new highways everywhere. This way railroads don't have to be ubiquitous in developed countries; we can have them only where real rail lines exist.

Let me know what you think about this, if you don't like it, I'll scrap it.

Genghis_Kai
Feb 04, 2009, 09:22 PM
I think the highway idea is interesting, but may not be practical in CIV.

The problem is that most railway are running parallel with highways in developed countries. Say in Australia, I can't think of any major highway (we call them freeway) that doesn't run parallel to a railway.

DVS
Feb 04, 2009, 09:29 PM
True enough. Maybe we should just use those graphics as our standard roads? Or should we just forget it and use the old ones?

Genghis_Kai
Feb 04, 2009, 09:36 PM
Actually if you could change the graphics, I would prefer changing the railway graphics. The roads stand out quite well from the map in CIV, but the colour of the railways are so light that I always have to zoom in to confirm they are there - very annoying when doing railway placement for the entire map.

DVS
Feb 04, 2009, 09:40 PM
Unfortunately I really don't know how to do that myself, and have a number of other things I have to get done before I can learn. I was just going to plug in the existing graphics. :-(

Genghis_Kai
Feb 04, 2009, 09:43 PM
Unfortunately I really don't know how to do that myself, and have a number of other things I have to get done before I can learn. I was just going to plug in the existing graphics. :-(

hah, don't worry then :cool:

Genghis_Kai
Feb 04, 2009, 10:18 PM
A question for our German friends.

How would you prefer the Essen (Ruhr)–Düsseldorf urban area to be called? This is going to be the largest city in Germany in the scenario and I am calling it Essen for simplicity at the moment. I am just wondering whether there is a common name already in use. I thought of calling it Ruhr area, but doesn't sound too much like a city.

DVS
Feb 04, 2009, 11:50 PM
http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=202055&stc=1&d=1233377612



This map is great, I love it, and it sounds like everyone else is happy with it too.

One thing I'm thinking about as I look at it more... should we make one or more of those barbarian countries into minor nations, to break it up a bit? From the looks of it, won't the failed states dominate central Africa too much? It's the continuous line of black that is making me think this, Kai, you know more about the strengths and number of cities etc.

Maybe Niger, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, or some combination of these. I'd have to look in to the political situations in these countries to find which would be best to remove from failed states... right now this thought is just based on geography.

Anyway just a suggestion, Genghis_Kai it's your call obviously. If you think it would work best without this change, I'm sure you're right.




Nation (number of cities):
Morocco(4)
Algeria(5)
Egypt(4)
Sudan(4)
Ethiopia(5)
West African States (5)
Nigeria (6)
Central African States(4)
Angola (4)
South Africa (6)
East African States (6)



This looks perfect to me. I think I forgot to mention that before.


EDIT: One more thing; I think Ecuador should be in the Bolivarian union for sure. Possibly Paraguay as well.

Genghis_Kai
Feb 05, 2009, 12:17 AM
@DVS. Your concern is quite true. I actually am thinking to make Bangui (Central African Republic) to belong to Central African States. There might be one or two more or these minor changes. I just didn't thought these changes would be too much of a concern to most people so I didn't raise it here.

DVS
Feb 05, 2009, 12:23 AM
Ok great, glad to hear you had the same concern and have it under control.

Do you agree about Ecuador? I think you may have looked at my post before I made the edit and added that part.

Genghis_Kai
Feb 05, 2009, 02:02 AM
Ok great, glad to hear you had the same concern and have it under control.

Do you agree about Ecuador? I think you may have looked at my post before I made the edit and added that part.

The Bolivarian Americas does not include Ecuador and Paraguay in reality. Should we add them there? Actually, I am fine either way.

DVS
Feb 05, 2009, 02:07 AM
Is that a real organization? Anyway I definetly think that Ecuador should be included, they are one of Venezuela's closest allies. They both moved troops to their borders with Columbia during the most recent tensions, for example.

I'm not sure about Paraguay. They are allies, but not as close as far as I know. I think we could leave them out.

Genghis_Kai
Feb 05, 2009, 02:09 AM
YES! I thought I said that when I propose the name:

Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Alternative_for_the_Americas)

DVS
Feb 05, 2009, 02:09 AM
Sorry, I missed that. Still, we can't really leave out Ecuador unless we make them their own civ, as a vassal.

DVS
Feb 05, 2009, 02:10 AM
"Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador, signed a joint agreement with Hugo Chávez, to become a member of ALBA once he became president,[5] but as of 2008 Ecuador has not joined the organization."

so, close enough?

Genghis_Kai
Feb 05, 2009, 03:10 AM
Yeah, ok :)

So you want both Ecuador and Paraguay to be included in the ALBA?

DVS
Feb 05, 2009, 03:13 AM
Yes, personally I think that would be best. But only if you agree.

Genghis_Kai
Feb 05, 2009, 03:22 AM
I am fine with either way, so lets include them.

ianinsane
Feb 05, 2009, 06:00 AM
A question for our German friends.

How would you prefer the Essen (Ruhr)–Düsseldorf urban area to be called? This is going to be the largest city in Germany in the scenario and I am calling it Essen for simplicity at the moment. I am just wondering whether there is a common name already in use. I thought of calling it Ruhr area, but doesn't sound too much like a city.

In Germany that area indeed is called "Ruhrgebiet" which you can translate as "Ruhr Area". As a German you'd have no problem to accept a city called "Ruhrgebiet". Everyone would know what is meant. It just is a megalopolis consisting of many many medium-sized cities. So I think calling it Essen would not measure up to that. Although I can't judge if "Ruhr Area" would appear strange to non-Germans since it really doesn't sound like a city. Alternatively you could just call it "Ruhr".

Genghis_Kai
Feb 05, 2009, 06:12 AM
In Germany that area indeed is called "Ruhrgebiet" which you can translate as "Ruhr Area". As a German you'd have no problem to accept a city called "Ruhrgebiet". Everyone would know what is meant. It just is a megalopolis consisting of many many medium-sized cities. So I think calling it Essen would not measure up to that. Although I can't judge if "Ruhr Area" would appear strange to non-Germans since it really doesn't sound like a city. Alternatively you could just call it "Ruhr".

Thanks. May be I just call it Ruhr.

sheep21
Feb 05, 2009, 08:20 AM
Ruhr Area sounds fine over here in the UK, what I have known that part of Germany as for a long time. :)

NikNaks
Feb 05, 2009, 09:32 AM
I've heard of the term "Ruhr Valley". Is that the same area?

Ace of Spades
Feb 05, 2009, 09:59 AM
Why not just call it "Ruhrgebiet" - the native german name? Or is there a naming convention that forbids it?

Best Regards,
Martin

Genghis_Kai
Feb 05, 2009, 06:56 PM
I tend to use the English name for most of the cities. Nevertheless, if Ruhrgebiet is already widely reckoned as THE name, then I can use it.

JEELEN
Feb 05, 2009, 11:54 PM
The Ruhr/Ruhr is fine. (It's the river the area - Gebiet - is anmed after.)

Genghis_Kai
Feb 06, 2009, 01:24 AM
I was reading a bit about the current EU status to find justification for the way we separating UK out of the EU. Then I found this from wiki (Opt-outs in the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opt-outs_in_the_European_Union)):

"In general, the law of the European Union is valid in all of the twenty-seven European Union member states. However, occasionally member states negotiate certain opt-outs from legislation or treaties of the European Union, meaning they do not participate in the common structure in these fields.

Currently, four states have opt-outs from parts of the European Union: Denmark (four opt-outs), Ireland (one opt-out plus one more under the proposed Treaty of Lisbon), Sweden (one opt-out, but only de facto) and the United Kingdom (two opt-outs plus two more under the proposed Treaty of Lisbon)."

It then seems taking out these four states from EU would no longer be arbitrary at all! Coincidentally, Ireland and Sweden are both permanent Neutral states, while Denmark can be combined into Norway or just Minor States. So, may I suggest to make this minor change as it would help us to justify much better why we make UK out of EU alone. But note that there is NO CHANGE IN THE CIV LIST. I am just suggesting to move some members from one civ to another, much like what we did when reviewing the Bolivarian Americas in a few post ago.

I am sure anyone who are living in the EU would know better than I do in this area. Feel free to comment on this as I wish to learn from you too. But I need to emphasize that, there should be NO CHANGE IN THE CIV LIST now as it would affect many good works achieved by many members of our team. Any suggestions that would affect the civ list we all agreed in here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7721371&postcount=190) will be ignored (including my own, if I started to sounds like I am!).

Genghis_Kai
Feb 07, 2009, 03:03 AM
How come no one make any comments on my previous suggestion? I hope I didn't sound like I was dictating the solution or unhappy to hear other's comments ;) Those bold texts were just me trying to emphasize that I won't override the consensus we've got in the Europe issue. So please feel free to comment, unless the suggestion was really not that interesting at all :cool:

ianinsane
Feb 07, 2009, 03:34 AM
OK :)

I can understand that you're looking for a "hard facts"-justification of our splitting of EU. But the problem here is that the reason why we excluded the UK will always be the same. In the first place we did it so the UK was able to militarily act independent from the EU, e.g. alongside the USA. Just the way it happened in Iraq. I think we should stand by that decision and not try to justify it by other means. The opt-outs to me seem like a pretextual reason.
Furthermore I'd not be happy with excluding such core states as Ireland, Denmark and Sweden from the EU. Especially Ireland has had more benefits from its EU membership than any other country.

Genghis_Kai
Feb 07, 2009, 04:09 AM
I can understand that you're looking for a "hard facts"-justification of our splitting of EU.

That's exactly what I am thinking. While changing the civ list is definitely not favorable at this stage, I am trying to think of minor changes to make better justification :)

Talk about core states, I suppose UK is even more core to EU than Denmark or Sweden! It really is something bugger me quite a bit. So I am trying to suggest solutions to make our split more justifiable.

I don't understand why you said the opt-outs are only textural. These are exemptions from adopting the EU laws! I think this is quite a good argument for us to split them out because they can act independently from EU's foreign policy based on the opt-outs, which was the reason you mentioned to separate UK out.

NikNaks
Feb 07, 2009, 05:16 AM
So we're arguing over reasoning for the exclusion of the UK? Why!? :lol: The opt-outs is a perfectly reasonable explanation, as is the war in Iraq, so let's leave it at that.

I'm happy with a quick Norway-Denmark merge into "Scandinavia" or some such entity.

Genghis_Kai
Feb 07, 2009, 05:33 AM
So we're arguing over reasoning for the exclusion of the UK? Why!? :lol: The opt-outs is a perfectly reasonable explanation, as is the war in Iraq, so let's leave it at that.


That's what I am thinking too. Basically, I am trying to find a better reason to exclude UK. In my opinion, the military affair in Iraq is just one example, or one instance for UK being different than EU. But then other people can suggest many counter examples to proof why UK shouldn't be; on the other hand, the opt-outs, is a legal proof for why UK, and a few other nations, should be separated out from the entire EU. Looking at the opt-out list now, I even think it is better than the Eurozone I previously suggested, because the exclusion from Eurozone was just one of the opt-outs. The opt-outs is a list all the examptions from various area in the general EU concept including Economics, foreign policy, human rights and etc.


I'm happy with a quick Norway-Denmark merge into "Scandinavia" or some such entity.


I don't have a preference as to whether we should merge them or just leave Denmark as minor states. But to keep every civ name untouched, I think is better to just keep Norway as is and make Denmark minor.

NikNaks
Feb 07, 2009, 05:47 AM
I'm not all that bothered either way, really. :)

Adhesive86
Feb 07, 2009, 06:31 AM
Adhesive86, the USA can always make a vassal out of Iraq, by using BTS' colony feature on the city info screen! But if they do it too soon and remove too many of their troops, before ridding the region of barbarians, it will get overrun. I think this is perfectly realistic.

Also, since we have merged in the revolutions mod, there is a chance a new, hostile civ will form in Iraq, if the USA doesn't manage it properly.


"Indeed US forces are actively working towards a pull out leaving independent, friendly governments are they not?"

I haven't seen any evidence of this, other than talk on TV (which is usually the opposite of the truth). Anyway, that's another discussion, we are just going to try an represent what is happening RIGHT NOW, since predicting the future even slightly is very generally difficulty. So far the US has not reduced troops at all, they have only escalated the war.


"The latest Africa solution looks fantastic."

Yes it sure does, let's all thank Genghis for that!


P.S. Your sig makes me laugh. I almost got kicked off my hockey team as a child for pointing that out.

Ok great, the revolutions mod merge sounds like it would portray the reality pretty well. So good job. Thanks for the explanation.

Regarding my signature, yeah i did point it out whilst on the rugby team. Decided to concertrate on track instead!

NikNaks
Feb 07, 2009, 06:38 AM
Also regarding said signature, I prefer the comeback "Well there's no U either!". :lol:

Adhesive86
Feb 07, 2009, 07:02 AM
That's what I am thinking too. Basically, I am trying to find a better reason to exclude UK. In my opinion, the military affair in Iraq is just one example, or one instance for UK being different than EU. But then other people can suggest many counter examples to proof why UK shouldn't be; on the other hand, the opt-outs, is a legal proof for why UK, and a few other nations, should be separated out from the entire EU. Looking at the opt-out list now, I even think it is better than the Eurozone I previously suggested, because the exclusion from Eurozone was just one of the opt-outs. The opt-outs is a list all the examptions from various area in the general EU concept including Economics, foreign policy, human rights and etc.



I don't have a preference as to whether we should merge them or just leave Denmark as minor states. But to keep every civ name untouched, I think is better to just keep Norway as is and make Denmark minor.

Kai, it kind of depends what you want to know, but i'd say you've got it pretty spot on with the civs as they are. From my european integration final year batchelor degree unit, (which i'm doing right now) I can tell you the following:

I would make a case for the UK being a special case.

The UK has never considered itself a part of the European project so much as the states which Donald Rumseld disparagingly referred to as 'Old Europe' (ie Germany, France, Italy, Benelux). For the original six, political and economic union were seen almost as the only option to prevent more war which had done no-one any good. All these nations had previous ideologies destroyed and in some cases hated. HOWEVER, the UK not only maintained it's existing convictions, but in fact its case for independence and ignorance of European affairs strengthened by the 'winning' of a war and the conviction that Europe= trouble.

This has of course evolved, but only as the EU has become a massive economic success and the UK has had to join in or miss out. Ideologically the UK is miles apart. Typically the UK tends to find itself at the opposite side of perspectives as France and there are literally too many cases to list, but it is fair to say that the UK is often at odds with the Franco-German controlling axis, with an ideology more aligned with anglo saxon North America.

The UK has typically found itself in an isolated position on many issues leading to opt outs on a whole raft of policies, not just diplomatic (e.g. Iraq) but also regarding social issues (e.g. the working time directive, where the UK tried to block more socially acceptable working hour limits vs the whole of the EU but was defeated as the issue fell under Health and Safety which did not require unanimity). The French idea of a 'social dimension' -1986- to overcome the downsides of the free market (so prevalent in the US for example) was rejected by the UK whilst everyone else agreed. I believe only Denmark has since had an issue such as the UK.

The UK is not in the Euro, so no monetary union. But has retained an 'opt in' possibility.

Sovereignty- building on from the previous, The UK has a far different opinion on soverereignty to the majority of the EU. Whereby the EU is a threat to national sovereigny. Meanwhile, the likes of France and Germany have a dominant tactic of seeking to use the EU to pool and increase the leverage of their influence. The idea of giving up national sovereignty is not as much of an issue for them, especially with regards to military- Germany has only recently awoken from 'chequebook diplomacy' and retain a more pacificist outlook whilst the French seek to leverage power through the EU- see the french ideal of a 'l'Europe puissance'. This is a broad point and there is detail and counter detail within which can be argued (e.g. the UK-French declaration at St Malo 1998), but it is a very important explanation of why the UK is a very different case.

Ireland did vote the ToLisbon down, but has been a massive EU beneficiary. So in the EU.

Broadly, the UK is now convinced of the case for European economic collaboration e.g. the single market, but ideologically is a world apart, with sovereigny- and all the implications of that- remaining about as important as it was for the rest of Europe pre WW2 to put it simply.

There a 3 European 'pillars' - Economic, Security/Defence, and Justice and Home Affairs.

1. Economic- the UK is broadly in line interms of the single market, but the social-economic tradeoff is more aligned with the US e.g. regulation, business focus, workers rights etc (this is largely 'social' but has economic implications). Also no Euro.

2. Defence- the UK, whislt part of the ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy), has shown where it sits when the chips are down- with the US- and indeed Europe lacks teeth here anyway. This is a fledgling policy, only coming in at 2000 in Nice.

3, Justice and Home Affairs- lots of UK opt outs.

I hope this helps. If anyone wants to know anything else then ask- I have a first class, relatively short essay on the notion of a 'European Defence Identity', heavily rooted in literature and espert opinions, which I am happy to forward- but i don't want to bore you. Similarly I'm sure there's plenty of guys on here that may well know alot more than me!

Ps I don't see how having Denmark as minor nations would be a good idea? Either represent them in the EU or individually- although i think this is a very poor case for an extra civ slot given their limited influence and position within the EU anyway. What's to be gained by having them as minor? Surely just put them in the EU.