Here is a list of all the current leaders of the included civs:
United States of America: George W. Bush (Aggressive, Imperialistic)
Canada: Stephen Harper (Protective, Organised)
Mexico: Felipe Calderón (Organised, Financial)
China: Wen Jiabao (Organised, Industrious)
North Korea: Kim Yong-Il (Protective, Aggresive)
Russia: Vladimir Putin (Expansive, Industrious)
Kazakhstan: Nursultan Nazarbaev (Protective, Charismatic)
Israel: Ehud Olmert (Protective, Expansive)
Palestine: Mahmud Abbas (Spiritual, Protective)
Egypt: Hosni Mubarak (Organised, Spiritual)
Iran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Spiritual, Aggressive)
South Korea: Lee Myung-bak (Financial, Industrious)
Nigeria: Umaru Yar'Adua (Organised, Philosophical)
Pakistan: Pervez Musharraf (Aggressive, Expansive)
India: Manmohan Singh (Financial, Creative)
Venezuela: Hugo Chavez (Charismatic, Imperialistic)
Colombia: Álvaro Uribe (Aggressive, Financial)
Brazil: Lula da Silva (Philosophical, Charismatic)
Argentina: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Charismatic, Financial)
Myanmar: Than Shwe (Organised, Protective)
Japan: Yasuo Fukuda (Industrious, Philosophical)
Australia: Kevin Rudd (Philosophical, Financial)
Philippines: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (Organised, Protective)
Indonesia: Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (Protective, Creative)
Saudi Arabia: Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz (Spiritual, Financial)
Sudan: Omar Hassan al-Bashir (Aggressive, Spiritual)
South Africa: Thabo Mbeki (Financial, Protective)
European Union: José Manuel Barroso (Financial, Industrious)
Permanent Neutrality: Micheline Calmy-Rey (Philosophical, Creative)
NATO: Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (Expansive, Imperialistic)
Independent African States: Muammar al-Gaddafi (Charismatic, Organised)
African Union: Jakaya Kikwete (Protective, Expansive)
Taiwan: Chen Shui-bian (Protective, Industrious)

Traits are up for discussion, and it may turn out that some leaders are no longer in power when we release the mod, so they may change too.

Also, what would everyone think to having vices like in isau's Saints and Sinners mod?

bush shouldnt be aggressive and imperialistic

Why is there both Nato and EU?

bush shouldnt be aggressive and imperialistic

which one of the two would you replace with what? i think it's appropriate. in my lifetime i haven't experienced a leader who started so many major wars and spent so much of a nation's money on war operations. hmmm wait, there's milošević...ok, he would have had these traits too, but he's dead now.

Why is there both Nato and EU?
*sigh*
Maybe we should link the original thread in every forum...
NATO was done too include nation states that are considered "western" or have military pacts with western states and are not really aligned with the EU but are too small to include as independent civs: UK, Turkey, Albania, Croatia etc.

Nice explanation :) I hope you don't mind me using your list.

which one of the two would you replace with what? i think it's appropriate. in my lifetime i haven't experienced a leader who started so many major wars and spent so much of a nation's money on war operations. hmmm wait, there's milošević...ok, he would have had these traits too, but he's dead now.


*sigh*
Maybe we should link the original thread in every forum...
NATO was done too include nation states that are considered "western" or have military pacts with western states and are not really aligned with the EU but are too small to include as independent civs: UK, Turkey, Albania, Croatia etc.

OK, but I think the UK and Turkey are important enough to be independent civs.

Will it be possible for leaders to change during the game, because George (Aggressive... :lol:) isn't going to be president for long. Something like "Barack Obama has been voted leader by our democracy (Barack Obama, charismatic and organized, will lead for 4 years)"... Something like that.

Ok, Medvedev is not the ruler of his country. Putin is. I don't care what Medvedev is nominally (Putin is also PM, which could have more power even on paper), Putin is running the country.

Will it be possible for leaders to change during the game, because George (Aggressive... :lol:) isn't going to be president for long. Something like "Barack Obama has been voted leader by our democracy (Barack Obama, charismatic and organized, will lead for 4 years)"... Something like that.Interesting idea. I can imagine as we move through time, we'll change the leaders and geography to fit what happens later in the year, but something like that would be an interesting idea to work on. :)
Ok, Medvedev is not the ruler of his country. Putin is. I don't care what Medvedev is nominally (Putin is also PM, which could have more power even on paper), Putin is running the country.Oops, I thought I'd already changed that. It's now fixed in the first post.

I really don;t want to start a forum fight here, but...Nato as Civilization? I know your explanation, but still. NATO is an organization of many Civs. Including it would force the US and Canada (its 1st and 3rd largest contributors, IIRC) in it too to make it seem 'normal' (IMO). The UK and Turkey are important enough to be separate, and the Balkan states (at least, Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and Slovenia) are in talks to join the EU by 2011. Serbia could be created to cover Kosovo, Serbia, and Montenegro, and Albania could be lumped with the EU as well. I know it sounds like I'm a minimalist, but having a 'NATO' Civ, when its just an alliance of many Civs, doesn't seem to me to be a good idea..

UK and turkey should be included as independant civs,I agree .I think that the idea that leaders should be replaced democratically is interesting as well............"Pat buchanan, has been voted leader by our democracy (Pat buchanan, Spiritual and agressive, will lead for 4 years)-maybe-possibly- have it linked with something like revolution .If your people are unhappy ,they will kick your party out.Parties could mean a change in civics ie health care etc

Ok, Gooblah, notice that this thread is called Leaders and there is a separate thread called Civs Discussion. ;)

I mean ,france,the uk and germany are much more powerful politically than say burma,canada or taiwan-so maybe enlarge germanyto include eastern EU nations,france to include spain and italy and make turkey a 'secular middle eastern civ'.Albania +croatia dont really need to be mentioned at all,or maybe just as independants.Add taiwan +south koreato america,burma +sudan as failed states and we might have a balance-just a suggestion though.If it has to happen the im fine with a eu civ.

Ok, Gooblah, notice that this thread is called Leaders and there is a separate thread called Civs Discussion. ;)

sorry:blush::crazyeye:

Hehe. Never mind. It's just easier to keep the comments in one place so that they don't get lost.

http://www.nato.int/docu/update/2007/01-january/e0110a.ht
since the capital of The NATO civ is in the uk ,why not have gordon brown-he'll be there for the next two years (financial,organised)

I doubt he's going to be there for two years, the way he's going, and him leading a NATO civ wouldn't make too much sense. It's fine to have the actual NATO leader in charge.

:(yeah,sorry-stick with jaap

Will it be possible for leaders to change during the game, because George (Aggressive... :lol:) isn't going to be president for long. Something like "Barack Obama has been voted leader by our democracy (Barack Obama, charismatic and organized, will lead for 4 years)"... Something like that.

I had that idea, too. It would be nice to have something to simulate the term of office.
If the player chooses a democratic civic, every 4 years, or 48 turns there should be an election. If a lot of citizens are unhappy a fictional opponent will be elected as leader of your civilization. Then you'd have to turn over control to the AI for a couple of turns. Next time you'd win the election automatically and are in charge again...
The same system should work for AI leaders. If one AI leader loses the election, the leader name could change and there could be random but slight effects on the relationship to other leaders. Maybe even one leader trait changes...
For the human player this should simulate the pressure on a leader to neglect important issues for the sake of winning an election.

I guess it's a hard job to mod that but we could keep it in mind for a later version of this mod.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=266295
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=173593
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=102537
Sorry-but ive just remembered some civ3 scenario that are similar to this(though this is well better)-of no use what so ever,but hey!

How about, rather than some complicated system, a choice at the start of the game to either have free play or historical play (ignoring that it hasn't happened yet). historical play will be the same as free play except there are consequences for not being like the leader you chose or stuff that just happens: G. W. Bush out of office for example or if Afghanistan turns democratic the old leader is replaced so you can't be Hitler of the "Pacifist Reunion" or something.

How about, rather than some complicated system, a choice at the start of the game to either have free play or historical play (ignoring that it hasn't happened yet). historical play will be the same as free play except there are consequences for not being like the leader you chose or stuff that just happens: G. W. Bush out of office for example or if Afghanistan turns democratic the old leader is replaced so you can't be Hitler of the "Pacifist Reunion" or something.

But since our mod is starting in the present...wouldn't it be odd to have a "historical" playmode? I mean what events should we include that could happen? That would be more or less crystal ball gazing...no real difference to free play. Or am I misunderstanding you?

Just want to say, I think it's pretty awesome Bush has the same traits as Genghis Khan. :lol:

By historical I mean things that are most definitely going to happen will happen like elections, where as in free play you just play like a regular game. So rather than a complicated democratic system we just, other than this year, randomly change leaders names and traits every four years so you have the illusion of a complicated democratic system. This will also prevent the US from doing something they won't do like become a police state (or would they :confused:).

chavez shouldnt be down as imperialistic, that dosent fit. Even if you want to attibute him a negative trait, give him aggressive, imperialistic makes no sense whatsoever, hes never sent troops outsides Venezuelas borders. I would suggest charismatic and protective TBH.

bush shouldnt be aggressive and imperialistic

which one of the two would you replace with what? i think it's appropriate. in my lifetime i haven't experienced a leader who started so many major wars and spent so much of a nation's money on war operations. hmmm wait, there's milošević...ok, he would have had these traits too, but he's dead now.

chavez shouldnt be down as imperialistic, that dosent fit. Even if you want to attibute him a negative trait, give him aggressive, imperialistic makes no sense whatsoever, hes never sent troops outsides Venezuelas borders. I would suggest charismatic and protective TBH.

Just want to say, I think it's pretty awesome Bush has the same traits as Genghis Khan.

I have read up on everything you guys have so far and I like everything except this thread. If you don't want to alienate people I suggest leaving political bias at the door. Neither Bush nor Chavez are Imperialistic. zbelg makes my point for me.

Bush
Aggressive
Protective
He is fighting Islamic Extremism aggressively to protect the west. Some may agree or disagree if it is working but it is not an attempt to expand an empire. So Imperialistic is a poke at Bush and is not an accurate trait.

Chavez
Organized-
Protective-
He has beefed up the Venezuela military since he took office. So protective is a viable trait. Charismatic isn't a good trait for him IMO. Most of the
people in Venezuela are very poor and this number is rising. Giving him a +happy in each city just seems wrong. Organized fits him much better.

EDIT: I would change N. Korea to Agg/Imp. The only thing stopping them from invading and taking over S. Korea again is the US military.

Let me argue for giving both "imperialistic" as a trait.

For Bush: The US has military in more foreign countries than any other state. The US is more or less aggressively trying to spread western political and economical systems around the world. And (I hope this is not too political) I guess all of us agree that the actual reason why Bush attacked Iraq was not to fight Islamic Extremism...

For Chavez (Imperialistic): Chavez is pushing hard to establish a Latin American union, positioned against US influence. He is trying very hard to gain influence on foreign governments throughout Latin America. And he has a finger in the pie of Colombian civil war...
For Chavez (Charismatic): As far as I know from a Venezuelan friend, people in Venezuela either adore him or hate him. And since the people who hate him are mostly the small upper class and since he won all of his elections overwhelmingly without fraud, Charismatic is the trait for him. If not for Chavez, who then for? Show me one leader who is adored that way by so many of his people.

Let me argue for giving both "imperialistic" as a trait.

For Bush: The US has military in more foreign countries than any other state. The US is more or less aggressively trying to spread western political and economical systems around the world. And (I hope this is not too political) I guess all of us agree that the actual reason why Bush attacked Iraq was not to fight Islamic Extremism...

For Chavez (Imperialistic): Chavez is pushing hard to establish a Latin American union, positioned against US influence. He is trying very hard to gain influence on foreign governments throughout Latin America. And he has a finger in the pie of Colombian civil war...
For Chavez (Charismatic): As far as I know from a Venezuelan friend, people in Venezuela either adore him or hate him. And since the people who hate him are mostly the small upper class and since he won all of his elections overwhelmingly without fraud, Charismatic is the trait for him. If not for Chavez, who then for? Show me one leader who is adored that way by so many of his people.

There is so much wrong with what you just said that we would need a seperate thread to break it all down (which we can do if you want). I was simply suggesting we leave political bias and (since you've now added some) propaganda out of the creation of this game. I know people hate Bush, its easy to blame the worlds problems on one man and one country. Through this fog lets keep a since of realism. I just don't want people that would genuinely like this mod to be turned off if it takes an anti-american or anti-any other nation stance.

OK, these are serious accusations. :)
It's hard doing a mod that represents today's world and not getting political. Every way of looking at the world is influenced by each one's individual political preferences. I guess some North Koreans would cry out aloud if you call their leader Agg./Imp. It all depends on somebody's point of view. No-one is right or wrong. Of course you could remove all "negative sounding" leader traits from the game if you don't want anybody to be turned off. And I agree with you: Leader traits are something very subjective. Probably the most subjective aspect of the game. In vanilla this is less a problem because most times history has adjudicated on leaders of the past. But this here is especially tough because every living leader has his devotees who see something different than his opponents.
I wrote you a PM.

Yes there needs to be political discussion in a real time mod but that doesn't mean we have to use it as another way to vent our IBS (irritable bush syndrome). Hey I don't agree with alot of his decisions but he's doing what he thinks is right and I'll let history be the judge. As far as the Imperialistic trait there just aren't any empires in the world today so the Imperialistic trait is pretty outdated. I said N.Korea may fall under this because they are a military state and would be overtaking there neighbor if not for the US and S. Korean militaries holding down the line. As for the heated political discussion we'll have it via PM as not to clog up this thread with the normal talking points.

Chavez did have huge initial success in reducing poverty and..............well.8-hour tv talks!Thats got to be worth something!

As far as Chavez I guess he would fit the Charismatic trait. He has the whole champion of the people image in Latin America. Like a new Castro but we all see how that turned out. Although there is no country that loves their leader more than N.Korea. They are of course brainwashed by the state and not just simply mislead like Chavez has done.

Will it be possible for leaders to change during the game, because George (Aggressive... :lol:) isn't going to be president for long. Something like "Barack Obama has been voted leader by our democracy (Barack Obama, charismatic and organized, will lead for 4 years)"... Something like that.

But it would have been strange then cause if there's an election in for example the US and you are russia then the leaderhead won't change, or can you fix that? If so that would be awesome

I doubt he's going to be there for two years, the way he's going, and him leading a NATO civ wouldn't make too much sense. It's fine to have the actual NATO leader in charge.
He has a working majority (more than enough to spare, still 60+) and the Labour Party has no-one else (David Miliband is too sensible to have stood at this point, though perhaps he will be the next Labour PM to take office after Cameron screws up after one term), so he is in until he calls an election, i.e. for the forseeable future.

And he is NOT Financial/Organised, otherwise this country would be in the middle of a boom and not a bust (wasn't it he who said "an end to boom and bust"...famous last words, anyone?). Knowing people who know him, Organised/Protective is more like it, Blair having been Charismatic/Aggressive. (David Cameron = Creative/Charismatic, but since I actually do know him, let me put it charitably that perhaps Creative/Stoned-half-the-time would be more like it. The time I role-played a civ game as him - well, OK, using Gilgamesh's Creative/Protective stats - it was the only single game in which I have lost the Apostolic Palace building).

I'll add my 0.02 :commerce: to the Civs thread, as the UK should be in as an independent civ. The EU is not a coherent global power, nor does it have its own army - take it from me as someone who knows these things intimately - and could not really be considered a civ. Particularly given the Treaty of Lisbon has failed, it really can't be organised into a single unit. If you are putting Kazakhstan (!) in, then the UK should be in on its own.

He has a working majority (more than enough to spare, still 60+) and the Labour Party has no-one else (David Miliband is too sensible to have stood at this point, though perhaps he will be the next Labour PM to take office after Cameron screws up after one term), so he is in until he calls an election, i.e. for the forseeable future.

and ed balls is too loyal,the two alans too uncharismatic, the lefties dont have enough support ,and frankly, charles clarke is just lying to himself.
Okay, I get your point,but he did make his name being a successful chancellor, even though he hasnt been the best of PMs.:cool:but ok

My 2 cents.......Why not have the Queen as leader of the UK? She is the Head of State if I'm not mistaken. I know it has become more of a customary role and she has little real power but it seems a better fit then the PM.

I know it has become more of a customary role and she has little real power but it seems a better fit then the PM.

So why then?

i think it's better with PM.

My 2 cents.......Why not have the Queen as leader of the UK? She is the Head of State if I'm not mistaken. I know it has become more of a customary role and she has little real power but it seems a better fit then the PM.

It wouldn't work. If you have the Queen as head of state for the UK, then she'd have to be the head of state for all the British Dominions/Commonwealth realms Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Jamaica, Papua New Guinea which in turn would make little sense as she is the Queen of each country separately. You wouldn't be able to have the Queen of Australia declare war on herself as the Queen of Papua New Guinea.

And if you'd want the "Head of the State" as the leader for every country you'd have e.g. Horst Köhler for Germany instead of Angela Merkel and Giorgio Napolitano for Italy instead of Silvio Berlusconi. That would be no fun...

Bush
Aggressive
Protective
He is fighting Islamic Extremism aggressively to protect the west. Some may agree or disagree if it is working but it is not an attempt to expand an empire. So Imperialistic is a poke at Bush and is not an accurate trait.



Well, personally I feel the effects of imperialistic,if not the title is suitable for bush,but more importantly, a john mccain leader would have agg+pro

Australia: Kevin Rudd (Philosophical, Financial)

I don't agree with Rudd being given the "financial" trait. In the course of him trying to do something "good" for the lower class of people in Australia, he'll inadvertently drive up inflation by doing what every Labour government has done for the past 30 years, "giving a helping hand to the poor".

I think that "charismatic" trait would suit Rudd better as he could talk a cow right out of it's calf..... that and the fact he's in love with China and manages to keep them happy.

If EU is going to be a single civ, I think it would be a better idea to put in Angela Merkel or José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero as a leader rather than a somewhat obscure European Commision leader.

Likewise, if England is part of NATO, put in Gordon Brown.

Well, personally I feel the effects of imperialistic,if not the title is suitable for bush,but more importantly, a john mccain leader would have agg+pro

But, we don't have John Mc Cain as our leader we have Obama, so, personally, say Obama should be Charismatic and Organized.

Just so everyone knows, I can start working on leader AI programming once I finish Civics, so just tell me once you all decide.

Yes, it should be Obama, because there's no way we're getting this mod released even Semi-playable until 2009.

Based upon the changing times, we might need to redo the leaderheads, and I volunteer. I think it's particularly important that we use appropriate base leaderheads to get the personalities right; I'll post my ideas later.

Don't think anyone's pointed this out, but you probably want Medvedev for Russia. Putin may hold real power, but Medvedev has the title (when Putin became PM that job suddenly became a whole lot more powerful), possibly include both with option to choose between the two?

It's been discussed, we agreed on Putin. He has the real power, will probably be pres again soon, and there is a great LH for him.

If someone wants to build a Medvedev LH we will definitely put him in there as an option. Right now though we need about 30 new ones just to have one leader for each civ, so before 1.0 is released I wouldn't recommend anyone spend time on making alternates.

Buy hey, if someone wants to work on a Medvedev, by all means go ahead, we will include it!

Update on leaders/leaderheads:

NikNaks added 6 of the high quality leaderheads available to us a while ago. Today I added Obama, real picture buttons for him and the 6 others, as well as finished up pedia entries for each. I also assigned each leaderhead to its civ, so you can now see them all on the "Select your civilization" screen.


If you guys have no objections to the way I am doing the buttons, I will make one for each of the other 41 or so leaders. I think this will be a decent way to show leaders that we only have placeholder leaderheads for.

Once I get the buttons done, I'll add the rest of the leaders to the mod, using the placeholders I came up with in the art thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=275553), unless you guys have better ideas.

Here are two examples of the buttons. If you don't like the way these are being done, now is the time to speak up. Not after I have made the other 41!

http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/492/world2009civs1rc6.jpg

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/9923/world2009civs2fo3.jpg

Awesome! Keep it going. I'll fix Mikheil later. Must have left in the wrong anims.

edit: problem solved

Mahmoud looks kinda freaky... other than that looks great! Keep up the greak work! :goodjob:

I'm not making the leaderheads, blame the artist!

I don't like the way the buttons are done. They should be pictures of the leaderhead, not the leader.

Saakashvili is now going to haunt my nightmares with those horrific eyes. Thanks for nothing! :mad:

hahahahaha, there quite shocking arent they!

hahaha, no kidding.

That brilliant work is courtesy of our very own NikNaks. :-)

I don't like the way the buttons are done. They should be pictures of the leaderhead, not the leader.

The reason I am doing it that way, is that we don't have custom leaderheads for all 48 leaders.

If we had great leaderheads for everyone like we do for castro, ahmadinejad, chavez etc, then it would be great to use leaderhead pics as buttons. But for now, we are going to be using placeholders (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=275553) for most of them. So this way at least each real leader will be shown. Some of the placeholder ideas we have so far are less than convincing. (Please contribute suggestions for improvements!)

Once the mod has been released, eventually we'll get custom skins for most of our leaders... we can always redo the buttons then. :)

17 down, 31 to go. The 17 are fully added included buttons and pedia entries.

edit: all finished with leaders.

maybe abit late, but could we have Gordon Brown as the leaderhead for NATO, he is the political head of NATO's leading European member, never know, might already be one out there too.

NP if it cant be done mind :)

I'll let you euro-types work that one out. :run:


It doesn't matter to me, I haven't done NATO yet.

Maybe look around for a Brown LH. If there is one already made that would be sweet.

I think it is fine to have real photos of the leaders for button placeholders. Although I suggest that these are only for civiliopedia entries. In the foreign advisor screen we should use buttons with the civ's flags. This screen will be so overcrowded that you won't be able to read the button's markings. I guess it will be problematic to find the right leader out of 45 pictures. Flags are easier to recognize.
I'd also suggest to use the civ names instead of leader names for the score ranking on the right side of the game screen.

Both good ideas, I will look into how we display country names in the scoreboard. I can't imagine it will be too hard, I have seen it before. Does everyone like that? Speak up if you don't.

As far as buttons, I don't think we can have one set of buttons for the pedia and one for the adviser screen. We'd have to use flags for everything. We'll see how it looks when the map is made and then we can make changes. Flag buttons are already used for every civ, so we have them handy.

Honestly, I suspect that screen is going to be pretty well worthless no matter what. I don't use it when I play a 34 civ game, to crowded. We have 46(47?) playable civs.

Both good ideas, I will look into how we display country names in the scoreboard. I can't imagine it will be too hard, I have seen it before.

Yes. Rhye's does display civ names instead of leader names. It does also use the civ buttons in the foreign advisor screen.

cool, thanks.

Both good ideas, I will look into how we display country names in the scoreboard.

Honestly, I suspect that screen is going to be pretty well worthless no matter what. I don't use it when I play a 34 civ game, to crowded. We have 46(47?) playable civs.

1) BUG Mod can do that!

2) The Revolution Mod automatically makes it so if there are too many civs on the scoreboard (i.e. is going off the screen) it only displays the top 10 (or something around that) civs on the scoreboard and puts a button at the bottom saying how many civs aren't displayed (i.e. +10 Civs). If you click the button it expands the scoreboard to what it would look like normally, with the bottom showing and the very top shooting off the screen. Of course, you can always shrink it again.

Stop making me look stupid! lol

Leaders are finished. Custom or placeholder animated leaderheads, new buttons, civ entries (from wikipedia) for all 48.

Up to date leader list:


African Union (Jakaya Kikwete)
Algeria (Abdelaziz Bouteflika)
Angola (Eduardo dos Santos)
Argentina (Cristina Kirchner)
Australia (Kevin Rudd)
Belarus (Alexander Lukashenko)
Brazil (Lula)
Canada (Stephen Harper)
Chile (Michelle Bachelet)
China (Hu Jintao)
Colombia (Álvaro Uribe)
Egypt (Hosni Mubarak)
Ethiopia (Meles Zenawi)
European Union (José Manuel Barroso)
Failed States (Idriss Déby)
Georgia (Mikheil Saakashvili)
Independent African States (Muammar al-Gaddafi)
India (Manmohan Singh)
Indonesia (Susilo Yudhoyono)
Iran (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad)
Israel (Ehud Olmert)
Japan (Taro Aso)
Kazakhstan (Nursultan Nazarbayev)
Mexico (Felipe Calderón)
Minor Nations (John Key)
Myanmar (Than Shwe)
NATO (Gordon Brown)
Nigeria (Umaru Yar'Adua)
North Korea (Kim Jong II)
Pakistan (Pervez Musharraf)
Palestine (Ismail Haniyeh)
Permanent Neutrality (Hans-Rudolf Merz)
Peru (Alan García)
Philippines (Gloria Arroyo)
Russia (Vladimir Putin)
South American Socialist Allies (Fidel Castro)
Saudi Arabia (King Abdullah)
South Africa (Jacob Zuma)
South Korea (Lee Myung-bak)
Sri Lanka (Mahinda Rajapaksa)
Sudan (Omar Hassan al-Bashir)
Syria (Bashar al-Assad)
Taiwan (Ma Ying-jeou)
Thailand (King Bhumibol Adulyadej)
Ukraine (Viktor Yushchenko)
United States of America (Barack Obama)
Venezuela (Hugo Chávez)
Vietnam (Nguyen Tan Dung)

Screenshot of leaders in tech tree:

http://a.imagehost.org/0354/world2009_pedialeaders1.jpg


and the rest (plus average example of placeholder LH):

http://a.imagehost.org/0904/world2009_pedialeaders2.jpg

looking good guys :)

The leader traits are not yet adjusted, are they? Since I was puzzled about Chavez' traits in the screenshot.

Leader traits are adjusted, not perfected yet. Many will have to be tweaked.

Favorite civics/religions have to wait until we have those aspects finished.

Keep in mind, religions have become ideologies, so making Chavez "spiritual", make sense. ;-)

Why not switch José Manuel Barroso with some leader from an EU civ, like Sarkozy, Merkel or Zapatero?

Likewise, why not make Gordon Brown the head of NATO.

They're certainly more well-known than Barroso and Scheffer.

Could you guys supply what default leaders you based yours on, as well as what their traits and flavor tags are at the moment?

I doubt it, but if someone wants to do that, great. Some of the leaderheads and placeholders we are using can be found in the art thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=275553), but it's not totally accurate or up to date. The best way to find that info would be to download the latest update.

we have the president of Pakistan wrong!

it should be Asif Ali Zardari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asif_Ali_Zardari)

apart from that, its all looking grand :)

yes, the two outdated leaders are:

Musharraf
Putin

We've decided to use these two anyway unless someone can come up with better art for Medvedev or Zardari.

Putin? Outdated? Well he may not be the prez anymore, but he's pulled some strings to still be in charge.

Heck, Muammar Al-Gaddafi doesn't hold any public office, but he's still the leader of Libya. The same thing has happened with Deng Xiaoping in China.

yes that's true, another reason discussed about keeping Putin. Although now, Medvedev does look slightly more independent than he did when we decided this, but I don't want to get back into it. But those are the only two who are not officially their country's head of state.

These took NikNaks and myself considerable time to do, I personally am not planning on making any changes to any of them until everything else is done. Other people can go ahead and change traits, and of course skin leaderheads. Favorite civics will have to wait until civics get finished.

Al-Gaddafi doesn't hold any public office, but he is officially Libya's chief of state.

DVS old boy, its fine, something to put on the back burner for the time being :)

The work you and niknaks have done on LH and Traits has been great

Thanks dude.

I'm not sure about Jacob Zuma as South African president... I mean, the election is only in a few months, and for the first time, it's actually a heavily contested issue as to who will be our next president. Certainly it won't be Zuma if he is convicted in the current court trials.

Great, thanks for sharing. We're glad to have the input of someone who lives there. Who do you think it should be? Or should we just wait for the elections, and then update?

We can always just use Mandela as a placeholder until then, if Zuma offends or seems incorrect to you or anyone. :-)

im thinking go with current for the time being (ala Pakistan) and update with v.2 if theres a new President.

Haha, no problem. Thabo Mbeki is probably the best choice *for now*. We currently have an acting president, due to Mbeki's resignation (politics :rolleyes:) following legal controversy surrounding the court cases against deputy president Jacob Zuma (separate charges of corruption and rape). So Mbeki resigned, and Zuma is not elected yet, and due to the criminal charges he is not allowed to take over as acting president. However the guy we currently have is a complete unknown. I don't even know his name. :D

So, I say, keep it at Thabo Mbeki, and if the election goes down before you release the mod, then update the game to reflect our new president. :) Or if you want to be 100% accurate, the current guy is Kgalema Motlanthe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kgalema_Motlanthe). Jacob Zuma was never president, and it is seeming increasingly unlikely to me that he will ever be.

hmm, ok.

We had Mbeki at first, but after his resignation we took him out. As much as he is the most well known, we didn't want anyone to waste time working on a leader that would definitely not be one of our final leaders. Right now we're aiming for Feb 28th as our release date, so the idea is to have as close as possible to the leaders on that day.

At the time I was starting to work on them, Zuma looked like the most likely candidate. I really haven't followed the situation there since. (getting behind on my Economist magazines lol)

Maybe we should just use Motlanthe. When is the election?

I believe it is "between April and June". Date has not been set yet... Don't know about the rest of the world but here the Independent Electoral Commission has to officially call an election, and then six weeks after that the election is held.

People are getting really disillusioned with Zuma, and his party (ANC), which used to get 69% of the vote, is now split in two, so the odds of him getting the majority vote are actually uncertain. That is if he manages to wriggle out of the corruption charges.

Feb 28th eh? I guess we all need a deadline to rise to! :D
I look forward to those elections in South Africa, they actually sound rather interesting.

These are interesting times, man... I mean, during Apartheid it was obviously always going to be a White government; and then after that was abolished it was obviously going to be a Black government because there are more previously oppressed black people in South Africa than there are white people. Now, for the first time, the one entity that 69% of the country voted for is split in two... Now, we will have our first truly democratic election.

Exciting times. :)

(If Zuma gets it I will leave the country, though.)

EDIT: I'm done hijacking your thread now. :D

If Jacob Zuma does win, though, I think we may have found what many people have wanted: a modern leader for the Zulu.

These are interesting times, man... I mean, during Apartheid it was obviously always going to be a White government; and then after that was abolished it was obviously going to be a Black government because there are more previously oppressed black people in South Africa than there are white people. Now, for the first time, the one entity that 69% of the country voted for is split in two... Now, we will have our first truly democratic election.

Exciting times. :)

(If Zuma gets it I will leave the country, though.)




If you don't mind my asking; do you oppose Zuma because of the corruption, due to political/ideological differences, or for another reason? Which candidate/party do you support?

My only sources of information on this election are the western press and what South African publications I have found online. I'd be very interested to hear anything you have to say on the subject.


I'm done hijacking your thread now. :D

I hope not! :)

If Jacob Zuma does win, though, I think we may have found what many people have wanted: a modern leader for the Zulu.
Truth. The unfortunate aspect of that is how every group in South Africa wants the country's leader to be one of them.
If you don't mind my asking; do you oppose Zuma because of the corruption, due to political/ideological differences, or for another reason? Which candidate/party do you support?

My only sources of information on this election are the western press and what South African publications I have found online. I'd be very interested to hear anything you have to say on the subject.
I oppose him because of the corruption, yes. I also oppose him for political and ideological differences. (I am a white male, btw.) In South Africa, Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment are huge movements that are protected by law and will be around for some time yet as the country attempts to raise the previously-disadvantaged population up from the poverty-ridden shithole it dumped them in during Apartheid. However, this makes it exceedingly difficult for healthy white males to get decent jobs as there are (for instance) quotas that all businesses must meet in terms of minimum employment of non-white people, disabled people, HIV positive people, women, etc. Under Thabo Mbeki, this was already problematic for people like me. Under Zuma, it will likely get a hell of a lot worse because at every turn, he promises whoever asks that he'll give them exactly what they want. What the black population wants is education and jobs. His supporters, who are numerous, are fiercely loyal to him (in spite of the corruption charges), and he is as loyal to them. Hence, I don't foresee the situation in South Africa getting any better for me if Zuma gets elected.

There are other aspects too, such as the ANC's Marxist influences. The group that split themselves from the ANC formed a new party called COPE (Congress of the People, in honour of the 1955 congress that wrote what would become the ANC's manifesto). I am far more in favour of COPE than of the ANC because the latter split from the former due to what they saw as deviation from what the ANC used to stand for - equal rights for all (not just black people), and a country in union.

But the candidate I really want to see getting the job is Helen Zille. She's the Mayor of Cape Town and the leader of the Democratic Alliance, the official opposition. She's a no-nonsense chick and she's done . .. .. .. .ing wonders for Cape Town. I'd love to see someone like that in power because she has none of the racial hatred for what was done to "her people" in the past; yet simultaneously she wants to uplift this country economically, and knows the way to do it is via education and job creation.

(The problem in South Africa, one might argue, is that vast stretches of our land is undeveloped [build some cottages, dammit!] and that makes it difficult to actually find jobs for the majority. You should see the informal settlements surrounding the big cities.)

Isn't the leader for China Chairman Hu Jin Tao?
Wen Jia Bao is the Prime Minister right?

Isn't the leader for China Chairman Hu Jin Tao?
Wen Jia Bao is the Prime Minister right?



up to date list (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7653859&postcount=72)

Why haven't you put Gordon Bron as the leader of NATO? In a confederation of nation, usually Civ puts the most important leader; in this case, it's Brown.

European Union has a lot of good leaders, but any of them is better than Barroso, I mean who even knows who Barroso is?

Not only that, but Brown and Sarkozy/Merkel/Berlusconi/Zapatero would be good for another version of the mod, one which splits up Europe.

Why haven't you put Gordon Bron as the leader of NATO? In a confederation of nation, usually Civ puts the most important leader; in this case, it's Brown.

up to date list (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7653859&postcount=72). ;)


European Union has a lot of good leaders, but any of them is better than Barroso, I mean who even knows who Barroso is?

Now they will!! Our mod is both fun and educational. :D

Since there isn't good art for any of the EU leaders, and there is no clear choice between them like there is with Brown, (and to spare me more work. lol), can we just leave Barroso for now? We want to start serious alpha testing in weeks (days?), so we have a number of other loose ends to tie up at the moment. These kinds of things can be easily changed later.

But if it really bothers you bro, I will put it on my todo list.

There is great Berlusconi art but he's not really a choice to lead the EU, is he? Is he even in power right now? Italy changes leaders so often I have given up trying to keep track. Thank goodness they are not a civ of their own!

Civics are done, so you can now start editing leader texts for favorite civics! I will also provide my own suggestions when I can.

How do I upload files?

Are you set up with the SVN (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=285090)? If you are, please commit them that way. If you aren't, and don't feel like setting it up, you could post your files here and myself or NikNaks will add them to the SVN.

Berlusconi's sort of a dark horse. If it had to be anybody it would be either Sarko, Merkel, or Zapatero, and we got a decent Sarko out there.

I have the SVN, but don't know how to upload files to your site that utilizes it. I also don't know how to upload things to these forums. A walkthrough is in order either way.

To upload something here; Click the "go advanced" button under the box you type your posts into.

Then scroll down, beneath the submit button, to the "Additional Options" section. Click "manage attachments". This will pop up a little window, with three spots for you to upload files. Click browse, select your file, and then click the Upload button. You will see bars moving as it uploads. Once it is finished, you can just close that window, post your message, and the files will be attached.

To upload to the SVN, you'll have to PM me your sourceforge.net username. I will add you so you can make updates. You are set up to download from the SVN right? If so, all you have to do to share your updates is right click on the World 2009 folder, and to go "SVN commit".

Hope that helps.

Civfanatics finds my file invalid, I don't think I have a sourceforge name, and I don't see any "SVN Commit" under right-click options. All there is is an option for "Tortoise SVN," which expands to "RepoBrowser," "Settings," "Help," and "About."

Sorry, put your files in a .zip file before uploading them here. If you want to use the SVN, you have to sign up for a sourceforge account (free).

Here they are. The art refs aren't done yet, but I have started to reuse and recycle various buttons from the core game to illustrate as I see fit. These should all show up, as the mod requires the core game to play. On the other hand, there is one button I snagged from Final Frontier to use for this mod; I included it in a folder, and specified what I think is the correct path for it now, but you'll need to check to make sure it loads in-game, and if not, change the path if necessary; also change it if you move the button to the more general "buttons" folder. Thanks.

I'd like to help for this mod.

Japan leader is not Yasuo Fukuda.

These days Asou Taro. (Financial, Aggressive)

There is some pictures.

http://image-search.yahoo.co.jp/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=top_ga1&p=asou+taro

Cool, thanks a lot. You're right. I will also check all the other leaders if they changed after we finished this list. After all Taro Aso (as it would be in English) has been in power since September 2008. As you seem to have more insight...why do you consider him "aggressive"?

ianinsane) His political speaking is very aggressive. ^^

Glad to have you helping, Sea of Japan. This isn't something to worry about though, I think we've got all the leaders up to date. (With the exception of Musharraf, Putin, and Zuma, who we are keeping for now). This list in the first post is old.

Here is the up to date list (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7653859&postcount=72). These are the guys and gals who we presently have in the mod.

No harm in going over it. :-)

Glad to have you helping, Sea of Japan. This isn't something to worry about though, I think we've got all the leaders up to date. (With the exception of Musharraf, Putin, and Zuma, who we are keeping for now). This list in the first post is old.

Here is the up to date list (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7653859&postcount=72). These are the guys and gals who we presently have in the mod.

No harm in going over it. :-)

Checked it again and found it to be up to date with one exception. We still have Fidel Castro instead of Raúl Castro who officially succeeded his brother in february 2008. Are we keeping him on purpose like Musharraf & Putin?

good eye, and yes. Sorry, I've been forgetting to mention that one. Thanks!

I'm guessing Fidel's there because 3-D art exists for him. Much as it's cool to see fans do professional work, though, I'd rather have static images in a better recreation of the current world than 3-D leaders that aren't up to date, although nowadays it seems 3-D leaders are a dime a dozen, so updating shouldn't take too long. I still am freaked out by Saakashvilli; he's write up there with Hyborem or Gilgamesh grabbing the camera as the creepiest leader ever.

He's creepy in real life!

FYI: We're using 3d placeholders for ones we don't have, not static images.

We need some additional leaders I guess:

Norway: Jens Stoltenberg
Turkey: Recep Erdoğan
Morocco: Mohammed VI
West African States: Tandja Mamadou
Central African States: Antoine Ntsimi
East African States: Juma Mwapachu
Bangladesh: Sheikh Hasina
Mongolia: Sanjaagiin Bayar
New Zealand: John Key (former Minor Nations leader)
Bolivarian Americas: Should be Hugo Chavez

We need some additional leaders I guess:

Norway: Jens Stoltenberg
Turkey: Recep Erdoğan
Morocco: Mohammed VI
West African States: Tandja Mamadou
Central African States: Antoine Ntsimi
East African States: Juma Mwapachu
Bangladesh: Sheikh Hasina
Mongolia: Sanjaagiin Bayar
New Zealand: John Key (former Minor Nations leader)
Bolivarian Americas: Should be Hugo Chavez


For East African States, we can just use Jakaya Kikwete, previously the leader of African Union.

And for Minor States, we can use Muammar al-Gaddafi, previously leader of Independent African nations, to replace John Key.

I don't know...if we'd like consistency we should use the Secretary Generals of the Unions (Juma Mwapachu is SG of the East African Community). After all we do the same with the EU. On the other side we could call the Unions after the largest state (like we already do with South Africa) and then use the leader of this state. For East Africa this would be Tanzania and Jakaya Kikwete...
But we don't have a custom leaderhead for Kikwete anyway, so it actually doesn't matter which of them we'll have as a leader.

Unfortunately, Jakaya Kikwete's term ended... yesterday! He was replaced as head of the AU by... Muammar al-Gaddafi.

It doesn't matter... for people who are not doing the xml for 50+ leaders. lol

Unfortunately, Jakaya Kikwete's term ended... yesterday! He was replaced as head of the AU by... Muammar al-Gaddafi.

Oh right. I just read about it. The "king of all African kings"...

It doesn't matter... for people who are not doing the xml for 50+ leaders. lol

lol...You're right. I should keep my mouth shut.

No no, just joking around. :)

I'd like everyone to start talking about what flavor texts each leader gets, and what their favorite civics are!

I'd like everyone to start talking about what flavor texts each leader gets, and what their favorite civics are!



Bud, the reason that no one has started helping with this yet is... no one knows what the civics are!

I haven't been able to get them working in the game yet. Have you? I haven't had time to do much de-bugging.

Perhaps you could post them here, or preferably I'd say, in the wiki (http://world2009.wikidot.com/). Once they're there we can start figuring out starting and favorite civics.

I apologize. The updated list of Civics, with their current effects, will be posted when I have time; right now I need to focus on my history homework.

hey don't apologize bro, just do what you can when you have the time. :-)

Civics are done! No more excuse not to think of what a leader's favorites will be! (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=275872&page=4) I will help when I can, however.

Gordon Brown (UK): Deregulation! (Although he's conveniently 'forgotten' all about that now in the current climate).

North Korea: Totalitarian (simple one!)

Myanmar/Burma: Martial Law

Argentina: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Charismatic, Financial)

Uhm... she should have anti-traits, you know:D

Uhm... she should have anti-traits, you know:D


Keep politics out of this sub-forum!

Especially since you're f-ing nuts! Maybe you prefer right wing dictators and financial ruin, but the majority of your country clearly prefers the Kirchners.

Are you a farmer by chance? Then I can see where you're coming from.

Indonesia: Confederacy

Israel: Military-Industrial

Palestine: Parliamentary/Tribalism?

China: Collective/Corporatist

Vietnam:Totalitarian/Communist

United States: Corporatist

?

You might wanna go to the civics subforum...

?

You might wanna go to the civics subforum...

Ianinsane,

Why? These are possibile leader's favourite civics as asked for by Bahmo in post 128. Would those be better in the civics forum instead, because no-one has said?

Uh, sorry, right. All this is so frayed out by now. I probably didn't get it because shatter crime used civ names instead of leader names.

Well, it looks like Zuma is going to be the President of South Africa right now.

Yeah, no doubt. In hindsight, I don't really know how I hoped that it could turn out differently... But oh well. I did my part. Now we'll see whether he is capable of leading this country - like one paper said, it is up to him not to betray Mandela's legacy.

EDIT: I see no traits have been chosen for Zuma yet. He is definitely Charismatic. However, I'm not sure about a second trait... The Wikipedia article on him makes a lot of mention of his economic angle, so maybe something like Financial? I think it's too early to tell, but I don't really know what else to give him (unless Diplomatic were a trait :P).

Yeah, no doubt. In hindsight, I don't really know how I hoped that it could turn out differently... But oh well. I did my part. Now we'll see whether he is capable of leading this country - like one paper said, it is up to him not to betray Mandela's legacy.

EDIT: I see no traits have been chosen for Zuma yet. He is definitely Charismatic. However, I'm not sure about a second trait... The Wikipedia article on him makes a lot of mention of his economic angle, so maybe something like Financial? I think it's too early to tell, but I don't really know what else to give him (unless Diplomatic were a trait :P).

I think SA not becoming Zimbabwe would be good enough.

Are you an Afrikaans speaker, by the way? We need Select/Order sounds for South Africa.

I think SA not becoming Zimbabwe would be good enough.
Fair enough.
Are you an Afrikaans speaker, by the way? We need Select/Order sounds for South Africa.
:D Yes I am, and I also happen to be a sound engineer with access to decent recording equipment. But I think it might be more appropriate to have English sounds with somewhat of a Zulu or Xhosa accent - this country has eleven official languages, and the Afrikaans speakers are a minority, so most people default to English. I could help with that, though.

EDIT: I also happen to be a composer and a multi-instrumentalist. Is there any need for music for this mod? Direct me to a thread...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=303984&page=2

MUSIC THREAD

Yeah, no doubt. In hindsight, I don't really know how I hoped that it could turn out differently... But oh well. I did my part. Now we'll see whether he is capable of leading this country - like one paper said, it is up to him not to betray Mandela's legacy.

EDIT: I see no traits have been chosen for Zuma yet. He is definitely Charismatic. However, I'm not sure about a second trait... The Wikipedia article on him makes a lot of mention of his economic angle, so maybe something like Financial? I think it's too early to tell, but I don't really know what else to give him (unless Diplomatic were a trait :P).

I also don't know what you would choose for the second trait. :confused: Given his own personal financial problems and his left leaning economic stance I don't know if Financial is the best option. He certainly has said some creative things in the media/courtroom and he can really dance and sing :mad: so that would be my best guess...

I actually think you're right, and I think in game terms the Creative trait very well represents the kind of effect that Zuma has on this country.

Cha, Cre it is, unless anyone has any massive revelation about it.

I forgot to mention Benjamin Netanyahu is in charge of Israel.

Are you guys accepting diplomacy text? I made some for Kevin Rudd. I made him sound like a nerd.

First Contact:
Kerplach! That means "Hello" in Hangon. My name is [CT_NAME] of [CT_CIV_SHORT] and I'm happy to meet you! Live long and prosper!

Refuse to Talk:
Beam yourself out of here, [CT_NAME]!

No Peace:
I find that highly illogical, [CT_NAME].

Friendly Greeting:
Yay, you're back! Hey, I have an idea, how about we pull an all-nighter and watch all 147 episodes of Star Drek?

Annoyed Greeting:
You know, I really wish I had one of those cool plasma guns that Captain Dirk used on episode 45 of Star Drek right now so I could use it against you.

Weaker Demand Tribute:
Don't dissapoint me like the season finale of Battlestar Andromeda did, [CT_NAME].

Equal Demand Tribute:
Don't mess with me, [CT_NAME]. I know the nerve pinch!

Stronger Demand Tribute:
Give me this or face my Hangon sword, [CT_NAME].

Awesome! :lol:

If you like that, then you'll love what I have for Jacob Zuma!

First Contact:
Good day, [CT_NAME]. I am [OUR_NAME] of the [OUR_EMPIRE]. Let there be peace between our nations until the end of time - after all, we'll still be ruling [OUR_CIV_SHORT] by then!

Refuse to Talk:
Don't come back until you've taken a shower, [CT_NAME].

No Peace:
I am not lenient on dictators like you, [CT_NAME].

Friendly Greeting:
What a surprise, my good friend [CT_NAME] is back. Hey, listen. Don't believe anyone who says I'm a crook. I don't even know the meaning of the word!

Annoyed Greeting:
If you were to stand any closer to me, I would knock you out, [CT_NAME].

Weaker Demand Tribute:
[OUR_CIV_SHORT] would like this, [CT_NAME]. Could you send an encrypted fax my way?

Equal Demand Tribute:
Can [OUR_CIV_SHORT] have this? After all, you trust me as much as I trust you, unlike the [OUR_CIV_ADJ] state machinery.

Stronger Demand Tribute:
Hand this over, [CT_NAME], or I'll ask my buddies to 'bring me my machine gun'.

Well, there goes political correctness! :lol: Personally, I'd love to have this kind of thing in, but if others object I'll at least provide it as an optional add-on of some kind.

Hahaha, those are awesome!

Well, there goes political correctness! :lol:

Well, Zuma was accused of corruption, and of course we know about the encrypted fax and the shower incident...

Most of these things really are statements that Zuma said. The annoyed greeting originally referred to homosexuals, Zuma said that the ANC will rule South Africa until the Second Coming of Christ, and "Bring me my machine gun" was the song he sang during the rape trial.

I think you should try to fit a polygamy line in there as well, for completeness's sake. :p

Polygamy's not really that funny unless there's Mormons involved.

Here are some lines for Hugo Chavez.

First Contact:
Hola, [CT_NAME]. My name is [OUR_NAME]. Do not let my reputation fool you; it is all imperialist lies. Would you like to be my friend?

Refuse to Talk:
Buzz off, [CT_CIV_ADJ] crap!

No Peace:
You messed with me, birdie. Now you're going to get it!

Friendly Greeting:
How are you, [CT_NAME]? Would you like to watch me lay the smack on other world leaders for over five hours?

Annoyed Greeting:
You are a donkey, Mr. Danger. What is it you want?

Demand Tribute Weaker:
We exist, too, [CT_NAME]. Your future demands on our future. Pay up.

Demand Tribute Equal:
When imperialism feels weak, it resorts to brute force. And that is what I will do if you don't provide me with this.

Demand Tribute Stronger:
We request this under penalty of death, oh puppy dog of the [OUR_EMPIRE].

How about this text for Lula da Silva?

First Contact:
Welcome to sunny, beautiful [OUR_CIV_SHORT], [CT_NAME]! I am [OUR_NAME]. I hope our nations can live in peace and friendship - so don't screw anything up, you understand?

Refuse to Talk:
We will not accept defamations against our country, [CT_NAME]!

No Peace:
This only the beginning of the war, and in the end we will be victorious like Napoleon when he went to China!

Friendly Greeting:
How are you doing, [CT_NAME]? Let's go to the beach! I'll be sure to bring my thong!

Annoyed Greeting:
I am the son of an illiterate father and mother, but compared to you, my parents were Einsteins!

Demand Tribute Weaker:
We have only to blame ourselves for our backwardness, [CT_NAME]... but you still owe us a little something!

Demand Tribute Equal:
Don't act like the elites who thought they knew what was best for [OUR_CIV_SHORT]. If you know what's good for you, give this to us!

Demand Tribute Stronger:
[OUR_CIV_SHORT] is in a solid position: solid enough to destroy the [CT_EMPIRE]! Care to persuade me otherwise?

China: Hu Jintao(phi, imp)

here's the part of your leaders list i have issues with:

West: 8
Usa - barack obama - CHM/EXP
canada - stephen harper - FIN/ORG
Mexico - felipe calderon - CHM/SPI
brazil - lula da silva - SPI/CRE
argentina - cristina kirchner - SPI/PRO
peru - alan garica - PHI/PRO
chile - michelle bachelet - ORG/EXP
colombia - alvaro velez - ORG/IND

europe: 10
UK - gordon brown - EXP/PRO
spain - jose zapatero - EXP/CRE
france - nicolas sarkozy - EXP/FIN
germany - horst kohler - FIN/PRO
poland - lech kaczynski - EXP/PRO
italy - giorgio napolitano - IND/CHM
sweden - fredrik reinfeldt - FIN/ORG
turkey - abdullah gul - PRO/IND
ukraine - viktor yushchenko - PRO/IMP
switzerland - hans merz - ind/fin


i won't say anything about the traits cause that's highly subjective.
but: the leaders of the civs should be the ones that actually are in power, not the formal head of states that are only there for representation. after all you used gordon brown for uk and not elizabeth II. this means:

germany: Angela Merkel (not Horst Köhler)
poland: Donald Tusk (not kaczynski)
italy: Silvio Berlusconi (not Napolitano)
turkey: Recep Erdogan (not Gül)
Ukraine: Yulia Tymoshenko (not Yushchenko)

Oh, and the name of the Colombian president is Alvaro Uribe, not Alvaro Velez...

I found some more:

Libya: Muammar al-Gaddafi
Israel: Benjamin Netanjahu
Lebanon: Fouad Siniora

And it won't ever get into my head why we waste 2 civ slots for Lebanon and Jordan...

Ian: Thats fine. That is a simple and small fix. The list that was put together by me was simply a quick wikipedia search that enabled me to get the list updated, etc.

here's the part of your leaders list i have issues with:

europe: 10
UK - gordon brown - EXP/PRO
spain - jose zapatero - EXP/CRE
france - nicolas sarkozy - EXP/FIN
germany - horst kohler - FIN/PRO
poland - lech kaczynski - EXP/PRO
italy - giorgio napolitano - IND/CHM
sweden - fredrik reinfeldt - FIN/ORG
turkey - abdullah gul - PRO/IND
ukraine - viktor yushchenko - PRO/IMP
switzerland - hans merz - ind/fin

i won't say anything about the traits cause that's highly subjective.
but: the leaders of the civs should be the ones that actually are in power, not the formal head of states that are only there for representation. after all you used gordon brown for uk and not elizabeth II. this means:

germany: Angela Merkel (not Horst Köhler)
poland: Donald Tusk (not kaczynski)
italy: Silvio Berlusconi (not Napolitano)
turkey: Recep Erdogan (not Gül)
Ukraine: Yulia Tymoshenko (not Yushchenko)

Oh, and the name of the Colombian president is Alvaro Uribe, not Alvaro Velez...


I second Ianinsane. But also re the traits:

I'm only going to comment on Europe as those i really know about, but the beloew really need changing.

Although Protectionist is OK for UK, Gordon Brown (UK) should not be expansive as the UK has spent the last 70 years doing the opposite. Gordon Brown was our last Chancellor (Chief Finance Minister) and is staking his reelection on his grand plans fr restoring the economy so should be Financial/ Protectionist.

Also, I would not put Germany as Protectionist at all. Germany has been about as close to Pacifism as you can get for 60 years, I would recommend Fin/Org or Fin/Ind.

France on the other hand, definitely SHOULD be protectionist, however. I would Put Sarkozy as Charasmatic and protectionist.

Make sure Berlusconi (Italy) is charasmatic and I would also say Financial. He has bedded half of Italy's women with his money, so these are probably fair.


So to sum up:

Gordon Brown (UK)- Pro/ Fin

Angela Merkel (Ger)- Fin/Org or Fin/Ind

Nicolas Sarkozy (Fra)- Char/Pro

Silvio Berlusconi (Ita)- Char/Fin or perhaps

Okay, go for it.

I am not nearly as familiar with Europe as I am with USA/SouthAmerica/MiddleEast/EastAsia.

We don't hear much about Europe in the USA. We just get hammered home with MiddleEast, East Asia, and Latin America.

Okay, go for it.

I am not nearly as familiar with Europe as I am with USA/SouthAmerica/MiddleEast/EastAsia.

We don't hear much about Europe in the USA. We just get hammered home with MiddleEast, East Asia, and Latin America.

Cool. Nothing else stands out to me to be corrected re leaders.

At this point this is the leaders/traits we have:

Please no arguments about mapped countries in this thread. Use the Map development thread. Only issues with the leaders used to represent.

West: 7
USA - Barack Obama - CHM/EXP
Canada - Stephen Harper - FIN/ORG
Mexico - Felipe Calderon - CHM/SPI
Brazil - Lula da silva - SPI/CRE
Argentina - Cristina Kirchner - SPI/PRO
Peru - Alan Garica - PHI/PRO
Chile - Michelle Bachelet - ORG/EXP
Colombia - Alvaro Uribe - ORG/IND

Bolivarian Alliance: 1 - Hugo Chavez - IMP/SPI
Venezuela
Ecuador
Bolivia
Cuba
Honduras
Dominican Republic

Europe: 10
UK - Gordon Brown - FIN/PRO
Spain - Jose Zapatero - EXP/CRE
France - Nicolas Sarkozy - CHA/PRO
Germany - Angela Merkel - FIN/IND
Poland - Donald Tusk - EXP/PRO
Italy - Silvio Berlusconi - CHA/FIN
Sweden - Fredrik Reinfeldt - FIN/ORG
Turkey - Recep Erdogan - PRO/IND
Ukraine - Yulia Tymoshenko - PRO/IMP
Switzerland - Hans Merz - ind/fin

European Union: 1 - Peter Balkenende - EXP/ORG
Belgium
Netherlands
Ireland
Portugal
Greece
Bulgaria
Romania
Czech Rep.
Austria
Hungary
Finland
Norway
Iceland
Denmark
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania

Mediterranean Union: 1 - Stipe Mesic CHM/ORG
Croatia
Albania
Serbia

N Africa: 4
Libya - Muammar al-Gaddafi - AGG/SPI
Egypt - Hosni Mubarak - PRO/CRE
Morocco - Abbas el Fassi - PRO/PHI
Algeria - Abdelaziz Bouteflika - SPI/PHI

Africa East/Central/West Alliances: 3
West: 1 - Umaru Yar Adua - FIN/PRO
Sierra leone
Liberia
Cameroon
Togo
Nigeria
Central: 1 - Jose dos Santos - IMP/EXP
Mali
Niger
Zambia
Angola
Senegal
East: 1 - Meles Zenawi - EXP/AGG
Tanzania
Mozambique
Ethiopia
namibia

South Africa: 1
South Africa - Jacob Zuma - ORG/CHM


Middle East: 4
Saudi Arabia - King Abdullah - FIN/PHI
Syria - Bashar al Assad - SPI/IMP
Israel - Benjamin Netanjahu - PRO/EXP
Iran - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - AGG/IMP

Central Asia: 2
Russia - Belarus - Vladimir Putin - IMP/FIN
CACO: - Kassym Tokayev - ORG/PHI - Tajikistan - Kazakhstan - Kyrgyzstan - Turkmenistan -Uzbekistan

West/South Asia: 2
Pakistan - Asif Zardari - AGG/SPI
India - Manmohan Singh - FIN/SPI

SouthEast Asia: 4
China: 1 - Wen Jiabao - FIN/IMP
Thailand: 1 - Bhumibol Adulyadej - IND/CRE
Indonesia: 1 - Susilo Yudhoyono - EXP/ORG
ASEAN: 1 - S.R. Nathan - FIN/ORG
Vietnam
Philippines
Malaysia
Singapore

East Asia: 3
N Korea - Kim Yong Il - AGG/IMP
S Korea - Lee Myung Bak - FIN/IND
Japan - Taro Aso - ORG/IND

Australia/Oceania: 1
Australia - Kevin Rudd - CHM/CRE

I truly hope that this list is not final.

Why is Barack Obama listed as Charismatic and Expansive? That seems silly to me. Charismatic and Philosophical fits much, much better. Even Cha/Org or Cha/Imp would be better than Expansive, of all things. If you're trying to reference his health care plan (with the +2 health bonus), that's silly. Reflect that in his favorite civic choice, not his bonuses.

Chavez as Imp/Spi? Bizarre. Imp/Cha, Imp/Phi, or Cha/Phi make much, much more sense. Chavez is not spiritual, but he is deeply committed to his political ideology. He's wildly popular and actively cultivates an image that appeals to the poor. That sounds charismatic. I understand the Imperialistic trait, thanks to a previous discussion, but I don't think it fits nearly as well as Cha/Phi.

Harper seems okay. I'm not 100% on Financial, but I like Organized a lot.

Why is Putin Financial? He doesn't strike me as particularly Financial. Maybe Imp/Cha or Imp/Agg.

Netanyahu is good, but Imp/Exp works very well for him, too. In fact, I'd argue more for Imp/Exp, personally.

Kevin Rudd is clearly Organized. I don't see where you're getting Cha/Cre. I don't see a clear second trait for him, but I suppose Cha/Org or Cre/Org could work. Does anyone else have any input on this?

Some of these trait choices smack of Western bias, but that's okay... as long as we realize and acknowledge it. For example, the only Agg or Imp nations on the list are Eastern European, Middle Eastern, and Far Eastern. That's a very simplistic and narrow viewpoint. However, I'm certainly willing to play along and make Putin, Castro, Musharrif, and Ahmadinejad the eeeeevil warmongers, and Obama, Rudd, and Harper the peaceful builders. Let's just admit to ourselves that we are biased.

Why is Barack Obama listed as Charismatic and Expansive?
I'm using these based on, more or less, the nation's ideologies, not the leaders themselves. Leaders are generally elected to represent the nation's ideas. More realistic for me would be making the USA Aggressive/Expansive. And no...Obama has no say in this. He is run by the Military Industrial Complex...who has the real say regardless of what liberal or conservative will say one way or the other. I am a political atheist (unless you consider Anarcho-Capitalism a realistic vision for the future), so I'm pretty much down the line of not caring about our system in this country.

The USA is the most expansive country in the world right now. (If I was basing his Health Care plan as being expansive, I would give it -3 health). We are involved in 2 different wars in the name of spreading our "ideologies," (freedom!...since we are one of the least free countries in the world, after all - with the highest % of citizens in a prison) as well as being involved in nearly every major military coup in the last 50-75 years.

Why is Putin Financial? He doesn't strike me as particularly Financial
Russia is FIN because, going forward, they are a global energy superpower. Not to mention he was put into power through the financial elite in Russia.

Some of these trait choices smack of Western bias
I'm about as objective as I believe I can be. I am NOT an "America First!!!" idiot. The USA has become the exact kind of joke a republic becomes as it grows too big for it's own good. We crumble under a false "democracy" in which 51% of people get to tell 49% of people what to do - where America was founded as being a country that stood up for the 49%. But...such is what happens to Republics that grow too large.

Iran is labeled as such because of their political ideology. Nearly every mosque in Iran has "Death to Israel" publically showcased.

Kevin Rudd is clearly Organized
Rudd was a misprint by me as I was copy-pasting. He is ORG/CHM in the XML.

Pakistan is labeled aggressive because of their "nationhood" type belief system.

Kim Yong-Il has led a country into having a smaller GDP than the USA's state of Delaware with his economic & political ideology of a perpetual military state. Hence, AGG/IMP.

China gets IMP over their feud with claiming Taiwan.

Still waiting on leaderhead & flag art before any next steps can be taken.

Matty,

I've offered to do your leaderheads but have had no firm response from you.

If you want me to do them please let me know with your final civ list and i'm sure i can turn them round in 1-2 days.

The flags are all done, and I'm uploading them now. For now, as I've said dozens of times, just use pre-existing XML + art as placeholders. It won't matter if we have an army of Alexander the Greats for testing purposes.

Adhesive, I think the list of civs on the penultimate page of the Final Civ List thread has the leaders included, so create ones for the civs that overlap with the list on the final page, and ignore ones that have been removed. Hope that makes sense. A useful tutorial for creating the images is here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144425) (just follow the instructions about the LH picture and ignore the rest).

EDIT: Just remembered that I don't have a graphic for the Minor Nations. Anyone have any ideas?

EDIT: Just remembered that I don't have a graphic for the Minor Nations. Anyone have any ideas?

I say either the Minor State Flag have the flag of the Minor states from RFC, A generic Grey Flag, or a Flag made of bits and pieces of all or the more important Minor states (like the combined countries in RTW).

Updated: Monday, 12:30PM Central Standard Time USA

For the Leader Traits, I'm thinking of doing it more like this:

Instead of individual leader traits, we should have a "country ideology" as the traits.

For example:
As I said above, a leader is selected by the people of the nation. But in today's world, a leader really doesn't have the "full-fledged impact" that the media makes them out to have. The best example is definitely the United States. Barack Obama, to the world and in the USA, is seen as someone who wants diplomacy over war, and is a very charismatic person. But, the fact is that he just sent another 30,000 troops to the Middle East. What a leader says, and what the "country" dictates are two very different things. In the USA, as in most of the world, the real power is behind the scenes. Obama came to power saying we'd be out of Iraq asap. Now, its going to last beyond his first 4 years - while we built a military base larger than the vatican - so, in essence - the USA is never leaving the Middle East unless financially forced to do so (a la the Soviet Union).

With that said, normally - you'd use something like "Charismatic/another trait" for Obama...but the USA acts in very different ways. The USA, easily, is the most expansive, imperialistic country of today's world - attempting to "spread" its' ideology throughout the world & by war if necessary. So that would be either: AGG/EXP, AGG/IMP, or IMP/EXP.

Now, with that, some of you are from all over the world...and you know your own country and the way it "really" operates better than those who live outside it (in most cases) as well as knowing the area of your part of the world better. Who am I to argue with IanInsane who I believe is from Germany...or to argue with Adhesive from UK about what their countries are really like, and what agendas their countries operate under despite the veil of the USA's mainstream media? Just like Obama appears to be the "savior" to many in the world and in the USA because of the media, but his actions speak louder than words thus far. So, using the full civ list found here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8412422&postcount=132 . Lets try to come up with "nation traits" instead of "leader traits." That would lead to a more accurate game for us to play.

NOTE: I will continuously edit this post with updated leader traits (feel free to comment on your thoughts/ideas for "national traits."


****THESE ARE OPEN TO DEBATE, just FYI****

West:
USA: AGG/IMP
Bolivarian Alliance: IMP/FIN (based on Venezuela's oil dealings & alliances)
Mexico: EXP/CHA
Brazil:
Chile:
Argentina:
Canada: ORG/FIN
Peru:

Europe:
European Union: ORG/CRE
UK: FIN/PRO
Spain: FIN/CRE
France: PRO/CRE
Germany: IND/PHI
Poland: PRO/PHI
Italy: CRE/CHA
Balkan States: ??
Ukraine: PRO/IND
Belarus: ??
Sweden: FIN/PHI
EFTA: FIN/PRO
Turkey: ??

Africa:
Libya: ??
Algeria & Tunisia: ??
South Africa: ??
Morocco: ??
Egypt: FIN (free market of the Middle East)/??
3 African Alliances: ??

Middle East:
Saudi Arabia: FIN/SPI
Israel: PRO/EXP
Iran: SPI/AGG
Syria: ORG/PRO
Palestine: PRO/EXP

South & West Asia:
Pakistan: SPI/AGG
India: IND/EXP
Causcasus Union: AGG/PRO

Central Asia:
Russia: PRO/FIN
CACO: PRO/??

East Asia:
China: IMP/FIN
Japan: IND/ORG
North Korea: AGG/IMP
South Korea: FIN/IND
Indonesia: ??
Thailand: ??
ASEAN: FIN/ORG
Vietnam: ??

Australia: EXP/ORG

America should be IMP/EXP that aren't that agressive compared to the other nations of the world

**So its not missed, please be sure to read this post ( http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8412933&postcount=168 )and comment**

America should be IMP/EXP that aren't that agressive compared to the other nations of the world

I would say that the USA is the most aggressive in the current world, by far. We pre-emptive attack countries with reckless abandon. We are involved in 2 wars (approaching a 3rd) that WE started with no possibility of leaving the wars behind anytime soon. How can others be "more aggressive" than that? We attack the "aggressive" countries in the name of providing security to our citizens...when our attacking and getting involved has directly lead to our country being exponentially more vulnerable to attacks and hatred. By every mean, the USA is the aggressor of the world as of 2009, and contrary to what the world may think - its only getting started. When a country seizes "empire" status, which the USA has had since the mid 1940s - they never let it go easily. And the USA is starting to crumble under its own weight of debt and entitlements. Until we fall financially/crumble under own our weight due to attempting to continue the welfare/warfar state like the USSR, the USA will continue to be the aggressor of the world under the veil of "ensuring freedom."

I say either the Minor State Flag have the flag of the Minor states from RFC, A generic Grey Flag, or a Flag made of bits and pieces of all or the more important Minor states (like the combined countries in RTW).I'm happy to make an amalgamation where it seems necessary. Look at the Caucasus flag:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk123/NikNaks93/yhsjjie.png

However, there seem to be rather too many for that to work. Do you have a screenshot of Rhye's?

And RE: the America thing, Mattygerst is completely correct about it being the aggressor. Let's just leave it at that. I'd be inclined to go with IMP/AGG

For the UK, I'd say we were probably FIN/IMP, FIN/ORG or something with FIN at least. Before the banking crisis, we've always been known for our financial institutions, and will again once we're out of recession. For the others, I'll have to think about most of them, but here's a few:

EU: PRO/FIN - common currency and various legislation designed to protect Europe's interests within Europe
Israel + Palestine: SPI over EXP - that's one of the main causes of the fighting after all
Germany: IND/PRO ? - I hear they're pretty efficient workers, but that's probably a stereotype

Russia: Financial, yes. Imperial no. Russia's miltary ambition has dwindled (as you ahve allayed to previously) and whilst Putin has no doubt injectied a bit more 'pride' for want of a better word I would think that their motives are more suited to 'protective' than 'imperial'. I see Russia as more concerned about their security than in search of a new empire. So Rus= Pro, Fin

Australia: Must be expansionist as they are basically actively attracting people to expland their population given their low population density. As for their other trait, I have no strong opinion, but only organized, financial or protective would make sense. The others are pretty definite no nos. My vote is Aus = Exp Org

UK: Must be financial as London is now the banking capital of the world. UK also is a prominent forerunner of free market capitalism. I would also say protective for two reasons: 1) We have remained the most Eurosceptic nation in the EU with the possible exception of Denmark and have been more fiercely protective of sovereignty on key issues compared to other large nations such as France, Germany, Italy. 2) The defensive bonus is representative of our excellent armed forces. So UK: Fin, Pro

EU: Org and Cre The EU should not be protective, I disagree with Niknaks as by definition the EU nations have invested in trade and supra-nationalism ie they have given up much of their own sovereignty. Also, non of the nations in our EU civ really have much military presence and rely on the US really for protection. The EU is at most a 'civilian power'. Any military bonuses would be misplaced. I strongly suggest Org due to the scale economies of operating the union and Cre as many of the countries represented are very cultured, post empire, with long histories. So EU: Org, Cre

Germany: I'll invite Ianinsane to comment, but can't be protective. The last 50-60 years Germany has been as close to pacifism in Europe as you can get with the possible exception of Switzerland and Ireland. Ps Please see earlier posts for suggestions of European countries Germany and France. I'll copy and paste when i find it. EDIT: Agree @Ianinsane with Industrious, Philosophical

France: As per my earlier post, recommend: Pro, Cre as the French are ultimately one of the most protectionist western nations in terms of culture, economy and military for years now, so pro is very sensible. Of course, France is one of the most cultured nations on the planet, so Cre is vital.

Italy: Charasmatic, Creative. Italian's are known as nationally very charasmatic, basically so this is simple. I had Berlusconi down as Financial, but creative is perhaps a better national trait. So, Italy: Char, Cre

Spain: A less confident opinion here, but as you're asking for one i've done a bit more research. I believe Financial holds water due to the large amount of successful multinationals e.g. car producers, telecommunications and banks. Crucially, the fact that Spanish car producers do not so much gain their advantage through domestic production and exports as through broader global operation has me favour finance over industrial (also Financial Services). The prevalence of Spanish culture worldwide and the importance it is held in at home, means that like many of her mediterranean neighbours I recomment creative as the second trait. So Spain= Fin, Cre

Sweden: Organised due to nature of economy and socialist state. (Sweden has a fantastic healthcare system for instance). Philosophical seems perhaps the next best trait as military ones must be ruled out due to Sweden's peaceful and neutral foreign policy, as must anything which denote nationalist or imperial ambition. Sweden's status as a small (in terms of population), peaceful ageing country means that philosophical makes alot of sense. So Sweden: Org, Phi

Poland: Must be Protective, as very preoccupied with perceived threat of renewed Russian aggression, and are actively seeking US help to upgrade their armed forces with both training and the whole 'Son of Star Wars' episode. I also think Philosophical would fit well, for simliar reasons as I recommend creative for EU, also compared to their in game size they do produce above their fair share of 'great' people. Another option would be spiritual as Poland is a very Catholic country. So Poland: Pro, Phi

Ukraine: Protective, like Poland in respone to Russia. Although it should be noted that Ukrainian attitudes to Russia are significantly more positive than vice versa. As a second trait i recommend Industrious, due to Ukraine being still having a large precentage of GDP contributed by manufacturing (although this is decreasing steadily) from real highs last century. Also, Ukraine has massive mineral deposits. If Ianinsane or anyone else has a strong informed opinion I'm open to change but this is my relitively informed opinion ;) So Ukraine= Pro, Ind

Pakistan: I agree with Matty. (although it is important that we don't let political thoughts cloud our perception of whether nations are agg, or rather 'pro', if we happen to agree with them!) So Pakistan= Spi, Agg

India: Industrial yes. But whilst their economy is growing, India is not a financial powerhouse like Japan, Germany, UK, insomuch as its GDP per capita is very low. India is underperforming in terms of her size and is a 'third world country' (4x population of USA). I would categorise India therefore as expansionist (the health bonus is useful too) as her population is massive and along with some economic improvements this means elevated status, but this is not because of a finance based economy in the manner of the other countries I mentioned. So India= Ind, Exp

Israel & Palestine EDIT: Whilst standing by my logic, Ianinsane's idea is fine. So recommend BOTH= Pro, Exp

Caucasus: I'm taking this as Georgia. Protective is given due to political situation. However, Saakashvili (Georgian President), did a very large amount of prodding of the Russian bear no matter what your thoughts on the conflict. Much of his politics has been confrontational to say the least and indeed there is little doubt that Georgia has been comparitively aggressive in not being at all shy to step up hostilities in response to Russian supported threats. I can dig out stuff to support this if needed. So Caucasus= Pro, Agg

Syria: Before someone says spiritualism: No. Their constitution guarantees freedom of worship and they are not declared as a Muslim state. This is a tough one as I really don't know enough about it, but again i've done a bit of research. I recommend Organised in so far as the economy is dominated by the state, ie the government has more input into the organisation of the economy than most civs. Given continuing difficulties with Israel and much of the West (possibly thawing with Obama), I recommend Protective. So: Org, Pro

Incidentally, yes I agree re USA too.

I'll edit this post as I come up with more ideas.

Concerning Germany I think Industrious is definately a good choice. The second one is more difficult. Since in Germany cultural tradition in terms of philosophy and humanities is highly valued (think of Luther, Hegel, Marx, Kant, Nietzsche, Benjamin, Adorno...) and big part of national self-perception I suggest Philosophical.
Germany = Ind, Phi

Concerning Israel and Palestine. I strongly suggest not to side design-wise with any of them in terms of who's the aggressor. We should stay neutral and give them both the same Agg or Pro traits. And I favor Pro for both of them.
Israel = Exp, Pro

Palestine should not be Spiritual. The PLO/Fatah, which still controls the West Bank and thus the majority of Palestine is an organization fighting for secularism and is nationalist, marxist/left-wing and NOT islamist. Of course the Hamas-controlled Gaza strip could be Spiritual. But since we have only one Palestine we cannot account for that. The religious/cultural/ethnic differences between Israel and Palestine are IMO represented adequately by those two civs having different Cultural Ideologies.
But what should be the second trait then? Nothing really works except Expansive. This is due to the extreme population growth in Palestine which is as far as I know the largest in the world. So:
Palestine = Exp, Pro, too. Isn't that a nice irony?

I'm happy to make an amalgamation where it seems necessary. Look at the Caucasus flag:
http://i279.photobucket.com/albums/kk123/NikNaks93/yhsjjie.png

However, there seem to be rather too many for that to work. Do you have a screenshot of Rhye's?

And RE: the America thing, Mattygerst is completely correct about it being the aggressor. Let's just leave it at that. I'd be inclined to go with IMP/AGG

For the UK, I'd say we were probably FIN/IMP, FIN/ORG or something with FIN at least. Before the banking crisis, we've always been known for our financial institutions, and will again once we're out of recession. For the others, I'll have to think about most of them, but here's a few:

EU: PRO/FIN - common currency and various legislation designed to protect Europe's interests within Europe
Israel + Palestine: SPI over EXP - that's one of the main causes of the fighting after all
Germany: IND/PRO ? - I hear they're pretty efficient workers, but that's probably a stereotype

You'll be happy to hear I just ripped an image out of RFC

http://i25.tinypic.com/k4y2ah.png

It's really just Scotland's flag, just Grey where it's Blue.

Also, for Vietnam's leader, here are my traits.

As one of the last Communist nations of the world, I think Imperialistic is a must (No, I'm not trying to be biased, but that's what I think). Also, as Vietnam was quickly able to quickly bounce back after 'Nam, maybe industrious or organized?

List updated in post #168. Country trait suggestions still needed for:

West:
Brazil:
Chile:
Argentina:
Peru:

Europe:
Balkan States: ??
Belarus: ??
Sweden: ??

Africa:
Libya: ??
Algeria & Tunisia: ??
South Africa: ??
Morocco: ??
Egypt: FIN (free market of the Middle East)/??
3 African Alliances: ??

Middle East:
Syria: ??

Central Asia:
CACO: PRO/??

East Asia:
Indonesia: ??
Thailand: ??
Vietnam: ??

Some thoughts that will be implemented if no other advice/recommendations are given.

I really have no idea about the ones not listed. Inaninsane lives closest in prox. to a few in which I'm sure he has a better idea: Sweden, Balkan states. But I imagine Sweden is ORG along with a 2nd trait, obviously.

As for the rest, it'll have to come down to a short amount of research I suppose. If anyone sees anything they know, though, please let your opinion be seen. Anyone know anything about the African civs better than an uniformed, media-created opinion that would be mine? Same goes with Syria. And then we have the conglomerate of far East Asia countries still do to. Thoughts? Getting these done is pretty important to me being able to finish the leaders in the XML with leaderheads/flags.

I'm going to go ahead and give Mexico EXP/CHA - since they all seem to be coming into our country, illegally and at will here in the USA, haha. And charismatic for lack of a better trait and that Mexican people are very, very proud of their Mexican culture/heritage.

I'm updating in post 172. Will show the results here.

Italy: Cha, Cre
Spain: Fin, Cre
Sweden: Org, Phi
Caucasus: Pro, Agg
Ukraine: Pro, Ind
Syria: Org, Pro

Sweden: ORG/PHI, very peaceful nation, at least don't give any military traits to it.
EFTA: FIN + something, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are rich countries. Maybe PRO, as Norway and Switzerland have quite good armies and the terrain helps to defense too.
Vietnam: Maybe PRO because of it's history, don't know about today's situation though.

Sweden: ORG/PHI, very peaceful nation, at least don't give any military traits to it.
EFTA: FIN + something, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland are rich countries. Maybe PRO, as Norway and Switzerland have quite good armies and the terrain helps to defense too.
Vietnam: Maybe PRO because of it's history, don't know about today's situation though.

Well, for Vietnam I already said Imperalistic and either Poductive or Industrious. Now that I think of it, though, productive is the better choice. So I say IMP/PRO. I think EFTA should be FIN/IND (Just like the once Swizterland civ) and use Switzerland's leader so we don't have to do more work.

You mean, 'Protective', right?

You mean, 'Protective', right?

Productive isn't a trait?

I always thought it was, but it isn't. Well, I guess Imperalistic/Protective would work.

Whoa, I think I'm a little late for this but I really disagree on the U.S.'s traits. AGG/IMP? Thats way off! For one, America has always been anti-Imperialism, all throughout the era in which it was popular (1800's) and still is today. What would make you think we're IMP? Just because we occupy one country and our at war with another does not make us IMP. We would be IMP if we invaded Iraq for the sole purpose of conquering it and claiming it to be a territory. But did we do that? No we invaded for some pretty bad reasons, but we never ever wanted to control Iraq as a U.S. territory.

And commenting on Matty's comment about the U.S. as an "empire", that once again is totally off. For the entire life-span of the U.S. we have always been anti-Empire, and we still are to this day. Anyone who claims we are an empire really doesn't know what an Empire is. An empire, as defined by Wikipedia is The term empire derives from the Latin imperium. Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy. America is none of that, did we conquer people and now exert control over them as our territory, no. Every country we have invaded in the last century has been for the purpose of bringing down (or protecting from) what we considered an "evil regime". And in no way did we conquer for pure territorial acquisitions.

AGG, I agree on more or less. But IMP is the total opposite of what it should be. I'd say a more accurate trait would be IND, because, as a nation, America is very Industrious.

So America should be AGG/IND.

Whoa, I think I'm a little late for this but I really disagree on the U.S.'s traits. AGG/IMP? Thats way off! For one, America has always been anti-Imperialism, all throughout the era in which it was popular (1800's) and still is today.

The USA stopped being a neutral country & anti-imperalist after WW2. The USA has 865+ military bases OVERSEAS...not even including the ones on US soil. We have 200,000 troops in 144 countries (NOT including Iraq & Afghanistan). Read on for more if that alone doesn't throw up a red flag of questioning exactly what is going on with the USA, JoeCoolyo.

And commenting on Matty's comment about the U.S. as an "empire", that once again is totally off. For the entire life-span of the U.S. we have always been anti-Empire, and we still are to this day.

You're definitely taught to think that in USA's government school system that is the public and now even private schools in the USA (thank you Department of Education!). But, its certainly far from true. At one time, yes. Especially in our early years. And the Constitution does state that we are to stay out of entangling alliances. Yet...we created the United Nations. We are truly far from what a social studies/civics class in an american school will lead you to believe. Think outside the box, and look around to see what we truly do. We are definitely "anti-empire," as long as its not our empire.

The term empire derives from the Latin imperium. Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.

The United States is currently running the world empire. 865+ overseas bases. Is pretty much a trademark of "empire." We have 200,000 troops in 144 countries (again, not including Iraq & Afghanistan). Whether you believe that is for "peacekeeping" or not...it should tell you one thing: We have the "power hand" at every corner of the globe. We make the decisions for MANY groups of countries. Today's empires are much more about financial control than anything, and that is what America goes after. We decide who gets in power, and who stays in power in many of our "tributary" governments. We put Musharref in power and overthrew their democratically elected government because it suited our interests. We have staged NUMEROUS coup d'etat's in Latin America and around the world in general. We are EASILY the world's most imperalistic country at the moment. We attack soverign states based on "ideals" that WE want to establish...but its really more about the corporations that run our government dictating the decisions of what does and doesn't get done. From Wiki: Imperialism not only describes colonial, territorial policies, but also economic and/or military dominance and influence. There is no country in the world that does (and attempts) to control military dominance and economic influence than the USA. George Bush may have said Iraq had WMD...but thats not why we really went there. You do realize that, right? We went there because we are installing political regimes favorable to us to allow our corporations to have a monopoly control on their oil fields and to establish Halliburton as the main exporter. If you don't see thru the state manipulated media to see that...I don't know that we can really have much of a discussion on it.

And why do you think we are making "villains" out of Pakistan and Iran. They are too unstable in our Iraqi-based corporation's eyes and pose a threat to our established corporations there, so, they are next on the list. I'm not really into "conspiracies" at all...not by a long shot. But using fact and reason, the above is the most logical point that can be made.

America, easily, is the most aggressive and most imperialistic - both militaristic and economic - country in the world. We are the Soviet Union of the 21st century. We simply do not seem as "cold and bad" here in the USA because we promote "freedom" according to our media (Even though we have the highest percentage of our citizens in a prison in the entire world...+20% more than anyone else). But...ask others in other parts or the world, or visit other parts of the world and you'll see a whole new picture through a different lens.

Countries still needed:

West:
Brazil:
Chile:
Argentina:
Peru:

Europe:
Balkan States: ??
Belarus: ??

Africa:
Libya: ??
Algeria & Tunisia: ??
South Africa: ??
Morocco: ??
Egypt: FIN (free market of the Middle East)/??
3 African Alliances: ??

Central Asia:
CACO: PRO/??

East Asia:
Indonesia: ??
Thailand: ??
Bangladesh: ??
Taiwan: ??
Vietnam: ??

The USA stopped being a neutral country & anti-imperalist after WW2. The USA has 865+ military bases OVERSEAS...not even including the ones on US soil. We have 200,000 troops in 144 countries (NOT including Iraq & Afghanistan). Read on for more if that alone doesn't throw up a red flag of questioning exactly what is going on with the USA, JoeCoolyo.

So we may act as a "World Police", that doesn't make us an empire, or Imperialist. If we were Imperialist, then all the countries we would have military bases in would be our colonies, there would be no South Korea, just American governors in charge of the Korean colony. We are so far from Imperialism its funny to mention it. Our troops are there for purposes of protecting us, as a nation, and protecting those who can't protect themselves. For example, South Korea, if we had not intervened and/or kept our troops there would have been easily over run by their totalitarian neighbor to the North. We are in no way being Imperialist over South Korea, we don't own their country, we are not in charge of their country, we don't take their resources, so in no way are we an Imperialistic nation.



You're definitely taught to think that in USA's government school system that is the public and now even private schools in the USA (thank you Department of Education!). But, its certainly far from true. At one time, yes. Especially in our early years. And the Constitution does state that we are to stay out of entangling alliances. Yet...we created the United Nations. We are truly far from what a social studies/civics class in an american school will lead you to believe. Think outside the box, and look around to see what we truly do. We are definitely "anti-empire," as long as its not our empire.

Oh yes, lets blame the educators! One, the United Nations is no where near an "entangling alliance", we support it, but in now way do any country that is actual in it enforce it. We can propose, for example, a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and make it son no one other than France, the UK, the U.S., China, and Russia can have nukes. But lets see, Iran, N. Korea, Israel, South Africa, India, and Pakistan all do. I wonder what happened there?


The United States is currently running the world empire. 865+ overseas bases. Is pretty much a trademark of "empire." We have 200,000 troops in 144 countries (again, not including Iraq & Afghanistan). Whether you believe that is for "peacekeeping" or not...it should tell you one thing: We have the "power hand" at every corner of the globe. We make the decisions for MANY groups of countries. Today's empires are much more about financial control than anything, and that is what America goes after. We decide who gets in power, and who stays in power in many of our "tributary" governments. We put Musharref in power and overthrew their democratically elected government because it suited our interests. We have staged NUMEROUS coup d'etat's in Latin America and around the world in general. We are EASILY the world's most imperalistic country at the moment. We attack soverign states based on "ideals" that WE want to establish...but its really more about the corporations that run our government dictating the decisions of what does and doesn't get done. From Wiki: There is no country in the world that does (and attempts) to control military dominance and economic influence than the USA. George Bush may have said Iraq had WMD...but thats not why we really went there. You do realize that, right? We went there because we are installing political regimes favorable to us to allow our corporations to have a monopoly control on their oil fields and to establish Halliburton as the main exporter. If you don't see thru the state manipulated media to see that...I don't know that we can really have much of a discussion on it.

Ok, ok, I see who are now. So I'm guessing you also believe that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who is an avid reader of Karl Marx and also happens to fancy the Nazi's policies. You know who else was a Nazi? Bush. While he sat in office he was told secretly through a ear-phone piece what to do by his Priest at his local church too. Oh and also he staged 9-11 to get support for invading the Middle East. He purposely killed 2000 of his own people just for the big oil companies. Oh, and he hates black people with his very soul, so he made sure no help got to them after Katrina because this man is just pure evil.

Oh yeah, and I remember that last time we decided not to intervene in world politics, yes 6 MILLION Jews we burned gassed, shot and buried alive, 5 MILLION other minorities too. 100 MILLION others died and long war that wouldn't have been so costly if we had intervened earlier. Britain was almost conquered, France was destroyed, Eastern Europe was depopulated, Russia had millions of deaths just trying to fend off a fiend that could have been easily put down if it was intervened with earlier. So I'm guessing we're a terrible people to invade and destroy Europe, because our constitution told us we shouldn't. I assume you agree.


And why do you think we are making "villains" out of Pakistan and Iran. They are too unstable in our Iraqi-based corporation's eyes and pose a threat to our established corporations there, so, they are next on the list. I'm not really into "conspiracies" at all...not by a long shot. But using fact and reason, the above is the most logical point that can be made.

One, since when were we making a villain out of Pakistan :lol:. I think we're actually supporting them, cause you know, their killing the people that have killed so many innocent souls. Iran is totally different, one, you have repressed people. Sure they have many more liberties than some in this world, but still many of the basic ones are taken away from them. That's just one reason to dislike this country. Two, they have a man in charge who is pursuing nuclear technology after denying the Holocaust and then promising to wipe Israel off the map. After denying a people's suffering and then promising to wipe those peoples' country away, yah I think that's pretty evil. Oh, and if the people (the theocratic head guys) in charge weren't evil, then why would they bother throwing this man back in? And then suppressing any protests against it. Yes, that country is pretty evil.


America, easily, is the most aggressive and most imperialistic - both militaristic and economic - country in the world. We are the Soviet Union of the 21st century. We simply do not seem as "cold and bad" here in the USA because we promote "freedom" according to our media (Even though we have the highest percentage of our citizens in a prison in the entire world...+20% more than anyone else). But...ask others in other parts or the world, or visit other parts of the world and you'll see a whole new picture through a different lens.

Aggressive, I don't mind the U.S. being called that because it is true. Imperialistic on the other hand is just hilariously so off that its actually kinda sad. Yes, we aren't bad, we do promote freedom, why do you think we have to have a large army that's stationed around the globe? Because there are people out there who don't like the idea of people not being persecuted for what they say, they don't like the idea people doing whatever it is what they feel like. Oh, and so to be a free country we have to let out people who committed mass murders, stole other peoples property and have committed corruption. Saying that is like saying "oh, that country over there isn't very safe because they import their banana stockpiles". It doesn't make any sense, your argument is very faulty and is based on over exaggeration of simple things, crazy conspiracies theories and countless misunderstandings.

America, AGG/IND

So we may act as a "World Police", that doesn't make us an empire, or Imperialist. If we were Imperialist, then all the countries we would have military bases in would be our colonies, there would be no South Korea, just American governors in charge of the Korean colony. We are so far from Imperialism its funny to mention it. Our troops are there for purposes of protecting us, as a nation, and protecting those who can't protect themselves. For example, South Korea, if we had not intervened and/or kept our troops there would have been easily over run by their totalitarian neighbor to the North. We are in no way being Imperialist over South Korea, we don't own their country, we are not in charge of their country, we don't take their resources, so in no way are we an Imperialistic nation.




Oh yes, lets blame the educators! One, the United Nations is no where near an "entangling alliance", we support it, but in now way do any country that is actual in it enforce it. We can propose, for example, a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and make it son no one other than France, the UK, the U.S., China, and Russia can have nukes. But lets see, Iran, N. Korea, Israel, South Africa, India, and Pakistan all do. I wonder what happened there?



Ok, ok, I see who are now. So I'm guessing you also believe that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who is an avid reader of Karl Marx and also happens to fancy the Nazi's policies. You know who else was a Nazi? Bush. While he sat in office he was told secretly through a ear-phone piece what to do by his Priest at his local church too. Oh and also he staged 9-11 to get support for invading the Middle East. He purposely killed 2000 of his own people just for the big oil companies. Oh, and he hates black people with his very soul, so he made sure no help got to them after Katrina because this man is just pure evil.

Oh yeah, and I remember that last time we decided not to intervene in world politics, yes 6 MILLION Jews we burned gassed, shot and buried alive, 5 MILLION other minorities too. 100 MILLION others died and long war that wouldn't have been so costly if we had intervened earlier. Britain was almost conquered, France was destroyed, Eastern Europe was depopulated, Russia had millions of deaths just trying to fend off a fiend that could have been easily put down if it was intervened with earlier. So I'm guessing we're a terrible people to invade and destroy Europe, because our constitution told us we shouldn't. I assume you agree.



One, since when were we making a villain out of Pakistan :lol:. I think we're actually supporting them, cause you know, their killing the people that have killed so many innocent souls. Iran is totally different, one, you have repressed people. Sure they have many more liberties than some in this world, but still many of the basic ones are taken away from them. That's just one reason to dislike this country. Two, they have a man in charge who is pursuing nuclear technology after denying the Holocaust and then promising to wipe Israel off the map. After denying a people's suffering and then promising to wipe those peoples' country away, yah I think that's pretty evil. Oh, and if the people (the theocratic head guys) in charge weren't evil, then why would they bother throwing this man back in? And then suppressing any protests against it. Yes, that country is pretty evil.



Aggressive, I don't mind the U.S. being called that because it is true. Imperialistic on the other hand is just hilariously so off that its actually kinda sad. Yes, we aren't bad, we do promote freedom, why do you think we have to have a large army that's stationed around the globe? Because there are people out there who don't like the idea of people not being persecuted for what they say, they don't like the idea people doing whatever it is what they feel like. Oh, and so to be a free country we have to let out people who committed mass murders, stole other peoples property and have committed corruption. Saying that is like saying "oh, that country over there isn't very safe because they import their banana stockpiles". It doesn't make any sense, your argument is very faulty and is based on over exaggeration of simple things, crazy conspiracies theories and countless misunderstandings.

America, AGG/IND
Imperialism definition, from Wiktionary: "The policy of forcefully extending a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations."

This "freedom" that America fights for could have been anything. It could have been "oil", or "money", or "Allah", or any of a hundred different names. However, it is of no consequence. At the end of the day, the USA still has a massive body of troops stationed in other countries. What they supposedly fight for does not matter. The truth is that they are imposing this "freedom" ideal on other countries via their military power.

Remember: nothing is universal. The "freedom" that the USA fights for is a USA-flavoured brand. The USA's concept of freedom does not necessarily correlate to that of other cultures - nor is it necessarily the "right" form thereof.

Thanks Henrebotha for understanding what I was trying to get at.

For now, use of spoilers to condense this and not hijack this thread for others' sake

I'm not going to comment on some of the things that you attempt to poke fun at, but will instead try to reason with you using logic. Here goes...

#1 People dislike our country because we meddle in their affairs. We try to throw our military weight around and tell others what to do and what to believe. We practice Militarism (more on that in #3 and how it makes Imperialism more correct for this trait list). Maybe USA-type freedom is the best thing. Maybe it isn't. That is not up to us to decide for others. But...that is what we do. We have no right telling a country and its citizens what to do and not to do. Iran's citizens as well as others we are discussingwho have EVERY RIGHT to leave their country as they wish - the citizens in Iran, etc., are not "trapped" in their country. They can get up and leave as they wish. But they don't, so it must not be THAT unbearable for them with their cultural understandings of how things work for them. Their affairs do not equal our affairs. Until a problem actually appears on the total brink of happening - then and ONLY then do we get involved IF our citizens VOTE it thru their representatives in Congress. Until then (and that is Consititutionally correct)...if it does not threaten our national security/sovereignty, we have no basis of being involved. And c'mon man. North Korea has a GDP smaller than the state of Delaware. They couldn't invade and sustain an invasion of an exponentially more militarily powerful South Korea if they wanted to. Same goes with the middle east. No one would DARE attack Israel. And not because of the United States. But because of Israel. Their military technology/strength/professionalism >>> any threat to them. And why is that true? Because the market determines the need for that. Israeli citizens identify a need for defense spending & military technology along with necessary purchases, and do so. They are not safe because of "us." They are safe because the market determines their need for safety and they adhere to that need.

#2 Obama is a Kenyan Muslim who is an avid reader of Karl Marx and also happens to fancy the Nazi's policies. You know who else was a Nazi? Bush
Obviously you're joking. But...there is no doubt, none from an economic point of view, that both promote and support corporatism. That is an economic fact (no, not Keynesianism (and yes I know you said Kenyan, not Keynesian) - but true economic fact). That is what I do for a living...economist. And they both support economic fascism, or in other words, a national-corporatist ideology. Which, simplified is corporatism. They are both Keynesians, with high leanings toward corporatism. Which would make them both economic fascists.

#3 We as a country pre-emptive attack/occupy "hostile" countries just as bad as we pre-emptively arrest people who have alcohol in their system while driving a car who have yet to do anything wrong and other various charges that fill the jail/court system. Its the same principle. If you're doing something "different" from one person's views of the way things "should be"...it doesn't mean you're doing something wrong. Just because you're drinking and driving doesn't make you a bad person. Its only when you cross the line and hit someone and cause a problem are you doing something wrong. At that point - there should be a severe penalty. More severe than what there is now. But there shouldn't be "escalating penalties" - in fact there should be NO penalties at all UNTIL there is an incident that affects a life other than your own. And IF you inflict harm on a person outside of yourself - there should be serious penalties. If Iran wants to taunt Israel and vice versa...let them. That is their business. Let either country do as they please. It is not our "job" to police and tell them to play nice. If Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon...let them. Nuclear weapons are mankinds greatest peace instrument yet. No one has dared to use it with the mutual threat of it being used against them. The USA used it...but there was no mutual threat. Only when a problem escalates into an actual altercation does it start to threaten our security. And then - IF the citizens decide action needs to be taken - then AND ONLY THEN, do we take action. We have no business policing anyone. And that, to me is imperialism. We most certainly practice economic imperialism. There are many great books you can read about it. I had to read them all the way thru graduate school after I got my first degree (economics). I also suggest to read about our practice of militarism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarism). There are many great books on both. And for this argument: Economic imperialism with militarism is best represented in civilization with: imperialism. A good read just to get you started would be this: http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=5625

But thats it for me. And for you. No more on this so we don't hijack the thread. Agree to disagree. We're going to have to agree to disagree. I am a very libertarian-freedom minded person. As long as you don't conflict with my rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness...then you are doing nothing wrong.

Suggestions for the rest (please dispute if necessary):

3 Brazil - FIN/PRO (world's 8th largest economy & largest air force in Latin America)
4 Argentina - EXP/CRE (2nd highest HDI in Latin America & top educated country in Latin America)
5 Peru - AGG/CRE (continuous territory disputes with Chile & a mix of many different cultures)
6 Chile - FIN/CHM (most prosperous nation per capita in South America & most free press & highest democratic development)
7 Colombia - CRE/SPI (crossroads of Latin & Central American cultures & spiritual for their never-ending political disputes)
16 Turkey - PRO/IND (high level military in the unstable middle east & one of fastest growing industrial complexes in the world)
21 Libya - AGG/SPI (contested the USA & didn't back down & Islamic "state religion")
22 Egypt - FIN/CRE (free market of the middle east & the countries cultural history)
23 Morocco - PRO/PHI (refusal to mix with African Union & allied with USA as well as 50 univerisities and 20% of budget spent toward education)
24 Algeria - PRO/SPI (a leading North African military power & 95+% Islamic following)
28 South Africa - EXP/CRE (leader of promoting African Union & mix of many cultures)
34 Vietnam - FIN/PRO (2nd fastest growing world economy last 20 yrs & military history)
36 CACO - CRE/ORG (for lack of a better choice for both, haha)

Assuming those seem okay these are the ones left...anyone feel like taking these on?:

25 West African Alliance
26 Central African Alliance
27 East African Alliance
40 Thailand
41 Indonesia
47 Balkan Union
48 Taiwan

I'll take a look at post 187 and come back with suggestions.

Re the Imperialist or Industrialist debate, I can see both sides. America certainly WAS industialist, but I'm not sure this is a great trait going forward. Protective would be better judging by how America (over?)reacts to threats against them (think invading countries under 'terrorism'/security and complaining about Al Megrahi whilst steadfastly refusing to extradite IRA terrorists to Britain and stop funding the IRA before September 11th introduced Americans to international terrorism too).

Re Imperialist, as I say I can see both sides and I don't see America as searching for any sort of military empire. HOWEVER it is absolutely correct that America matches the definition given in post 185, more in an economic, corporate and political fashion than the military fashion of old. An example is the 'Washington Consensus', under which America basically decided that the only countries that should receive aid from the West were those that matched American ideals- ie not just democracy, but free market etc. I can provide the whole list if necessary. America is absolutely fashioning the world in its vision and is using her immense influence to do so, through carrot or stick.

As a non American I will try and stay out of this, but whilst Imperialist could make sense, this is controversial in the same manner as siding with Palestine or Israel in traits and is highly political.

Re the Imperialist or Industrialist debate, I can see both sides. America certainly WAS industialist, but I'm not sure this is a great trait going forward.

Well, seeing as we have had over a 200% drop in manufacturing in the last 20 years (mostly since NAFTA was signed), then I can't see how we are possibly industrious. And as I've said, there is no doubt that America throws its economic weight around the world (we have notoriously not given out aid to countries unless they have our "ideals" or democracy, free markets, etc. and let millions starve because of it). So acting like we're some country coming to "save the world" is a joke. We've enabled the starvation of a fraction of the amount that we've aided...but, the fact remains that we do sanction countries and let them starve if they don't adopt "American ideals." And, going with Militarism (look it up if needed) - there is no doubt that the USA adheres to strict militarism and has since the days of the Cold War. That economic "imperialism" and militarism to me = imperialism in the game of civilization.

I agree that America has some imperialist leanings, and I am not a big fan of neoliberalism. However, with regard to giving Obama the Agg/Imp traits, that is unfair, because he's merely maintaining what his predecessor started, and only in the case of Afghanistan. Obama supported pulling out of Iraq, and closing the prison at Guantanamo. No matter what happens, his critics from the extreme left and from abroad will say he's cut from the same cloth as Bush, but the distinction is clear enough to the point that he shouldn't have the same traits, and besides, you can just as well replicate the world situation by giving America control over all the current territory it currently has, rather than making every American leader ready for a new bout of imperialism.

with regard to giving Obama the Agg/Imp traits

We've already discussed. We're not giving "leader traits." Because for all intents and purposes - the mod will surely go over time that a leader would not be involved. Thats why we are giving "country" traits. Because like you said, after all, because he's merely maintaining what his predecessor started, and only in the case of Afghanistan. Obama supported pulling out of Iraq - the fact is we are sending another 40+ thousand troops overseas. The President of the USA has "final say," but they are not the actual decision makers on these things. The military-industrial complex is making these decisions, and no matter who is president (outside of a select few who really will never be president) the decisions won't change from one guy to the next. Bush, Obama, and whoever is next will run the same foreign policy that has been the American way since the fall of the USSR.

Hence - "country traits" instead of leader traits.

Imperialism definition, from Wiktionary: "The policy of forcefully extending a nation's authority by territorial gain or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations."

This "freedom" that America fights for could have been anything. It could have been "oil", or "money", or "Allah", or any of a hundred different names. However, it is of no consequence. At the end of the day, the USA still has a massive body of troops stationed in other countries. What they supposedly fight for does not matter. The truth is that they are imposing this "freedom" ideal on other countries via their military power.

Remember: nothing is universal. The "freedom" that the USA fights for is a USA-flavoured brand. The USA's concept of freedom does not necessarily correlate to that of other cultures - nor is it necessarily the "right" form thereof.

That is true, its just you just have to think about what the creators where thinking about when they created the traits. As Civilization is a game based on history, I think they were mostly focusing on the type of Imperialism that Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Italy, etc. had during the 17-1800's. And that type of Imperialism the U.S. is no where near.

Well, seeing as we have had over a 200% drop in manufacturing in the last 20 years (mostly since NAFTA was signed), then I can't see how we are possibly industrious. And as I've said, there is no doubt that America throws its economic weight around the world (we have notoriously not given out aid to countries unless they have our "ideals" or democracy, free markets, etc. and let millions starve because of it). So acting like we're some country coming to "save the world" is a joke. We've enabled the starvation of a fraction of the amount that we've aided...but, the fact remains that we do sanction countries and let them starve if they don't adopt "American ideals." And, going with Militarism (look it up if needed) - there is no doubt that the USA adheres to strict militarism and has since the days of the Cold War. That economic "imperialism" and militarism to me = imperialism in the game of civilization.

We're a very powerful, no need to dispute that. But one, if we were a strict militaristic country than there wouldn't be any protests over war, as the military would make sure that everyone supports the war, you can't be a militaristic country that allows its citizens to criticize the government or protest. And two, if we were truly militaristic as you say, why don't I see soldiers and tanks patrolling the street? We don't because the military is there for merely protecting the U.S.'s interests, not being in control of the state.

And yes, in terms of industry, we have lost a lot of it to over seas countries and such, but what I'm thinking of in term (once again) is the shear production power the U.S. Its amazing that we're able to have two wars and countless troops all over the world and still get Humvees, helicopters, planes, and tanks, along with guns, ammunition, and everything a soldier carries around with them to all those millions of troops. And resupplying them too. That alone shows a nation that has a huge industrial and production capacity. And along with that our companies still produce millions of cars, hundreds of airplanes, tons of trains, millions of iPods, heaping amounts of computers, etc. We are defiantly an nation deserving the IND trait, especially if you look at the bonus's its gets, 50% wonder production I believe suits the U.S. perfectly. We're always building monster size projects that all get completed with a couple years, we're a nation that clearly deserves the IND trait.

America, once again should be AGG/IND, its the most suited for that.


edit: Just wanted to say, I'm actually really liking this debate, we haven't had one like this in a while (if ever in this mod?), this shows that we can really get stuff done and get the most accurate of things for this mod :D

Militarism is (from wiki)
the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests.[1]
It has also been defined as "aggressiveness that involves the threat of using military force"

Nothing about patrolling the streets with the military. And truly, if you are "against the war" you are labled "unpatriotic" in the media. It is DEFINITELY popular to be anti-Bush administration's use of troops by sending them over "unprepared and with less than adequate funding." But...being against the war is seen as being against the troops. If you are against the military - you are called unpatriotic - no doubt about it. There is dissent vs. Bush because being against him/Cheney became very popular. There is not nearly ANY talk about the war (comparably as when Bush was in office) with Obama. Mostly because Obama has continued the same practice (sending even more troops), but it is currently popular to support Obama.

Its amazing that we're able to have two wars and countless troops all over the world and still get Humvees, helicopters, planes, and tanks, along with guns, ammunition, and everything a soldier carries around with them to all those millions of troops. And resupplying them too.

Much more attributable to the financial resources we had...and currently have as a result of the massive deficit spending and borrowing. Its not unreasonable to have the size of the military we have when we spend more on our military than the rest of the world - COMBINED. Once financial credit is ceased being given to the USA by mostly China - the ability to fund that will end. Similar to when the USA 'called' on British notes and forced the British military to withdraw from the Suez due to financial reasons. Same will happen to the USA at some point in the future since we deficit spend & borrow 250 million/day just to fund the war - alone.

And along with that our companies still produce millions of cars, hundreds of airplanes, tons of trains, millions of iPods, heaping amounts of computers, etc.

iPod: produced: Longhua, China
Computers: 85% are built in East Asia
Cars & trains: Japan produced more trains/cars than anyone in the world by a factor of two (and USA was not in the top 5)

If by produce, you mean "buy from other countries" as imports into our country. This is what the financial crisis is about. The country borrowed its way to this point. We 'borrowed wealth' in order to pay for this stuff. And everyone is finding out that you can't "borrow" your way out of debt - especially at the national level. Boeing is our largest export - by a MILE - and even with that we have garnered a massive trade imbalance. The reason we're in such dire straits financially, is because we DONT produce anything anymore (compared to what we consume that is produce by others). Many cars may be produced in the USA. But, for the first time, the majority are built by foreign companies. That means that the capital made from those plants is not actually American capital. That capital goes to the foreign countries.

50-60 years ago I 100% agree with you. We're not the same country we were then.

... Its amazing that we're able to have two wars and countless troops all over the world and still get Humvees, helicopters, planes, and tanks, along with guns, ammunition, and everything a soldier carries around with them to all those millions of troops. And resupplying them too. That alone shows a nation that has a huge industrial and production capacity. ...
IMO that is included in the Aggressive trait.

And of course you can change traits to you own use ;)

edit: Just wanted to say, I'm actually really liking this debate, we haven't had one like this in a while (if ever in this mod?), this shows that we can really get stuff done and get the most accurate of things for this mod :D

Not if we don't get anything done because we're against each other. Does Matty ever consider that maybe policy evolution starts with new leaders? Would it be fair to give modern China the same personality Mao had? No. National traits as opposed to leader traits make some sense, but not when there is a chance that new leaders can fundamentally alter what a nation is fundamentally about, and I would rather Matt doesn't deny Obama the capacity to do that just because the president doesn't exactly share his hippy attitudes.

Nothing about patrolling the streets with the military. And truly, if you are "against the war" you are labled "unpatriotic" in the media. It is DEFINITELY popular to be anti-Bush administration's use of troops by sending them over "unprepared and with less than adequate funding." But...being against the war is seen as being against the troops. If you are against the military - you are called unpatriotic - no doubt about it. There is dissent vs. Bush because being against him/Cheney became very popular. There is not nearly ANY talk about the war (comparably as when Bush was in office) with Obama. Mostly because Obama has continued the same practice (sending even more troops), but it is currently popular to support Obama.

Hmm... one, what news are listening too? If its Fox (or affiliates, achem Washington Post achem), don't listen to them as they hate anything that the conservatives hate. And two, if you say that everyone who is against the Iraq war is unpatriotic, then I think a good portion of this country would be called that by your definitions. Most of the country is against that war, and no one saying that is being called unpatriotic (once again ignore Fox News).

Oh and Obama is taking troops out of Iraq, not putting them in. He's putting more troops in Afghanistan, where they actually need them.




Much more attributable to the financial resources we had...and currently have as a result of the massive deficit spending and borrowing. Its not unreasonable to have the size of the military we have when we spend more on our military than the rest of the world - COMBINED. Once financial credit is ceased being given to the USA by mostly China - the ability to fund that will end. Similar to when the USA 'called' on British notes and forced the British military to withdraw from the Suez due to financial reasons. Same will happen to the USA at some point in the future since we deficit spend & borrow 250 million/day just to fund the war - alone.

That's the funding, I'm talking about the actual equipment. As in HMMWVs, Abrams, Bradleys, F-18s, Apaches, etc. All of these are manufactured by the U.S., and with thousands of these vehicles being operated, produced, and ammunition supplied to them shows the Industrial capacity of the U.S.



iPod: produced: Longhua, China
Computers: 85% are built in East Asia
Cars & trains: Japan produced more trains/cars than anyone in the world by a factor of two (and USA was not in the top 5)


If by produce, you mean "buy from other countries" as imports into our country. This is what the financial crisis is about. The country borrowed its way to this point. We 'borrowed wealth' in order to pay for this stuff. And everyone is finding out that you can't "borrow" your way out of debt - especially at the national level. Boeing is our largest export - by a MILE - and even with that we have garnered a massive trade imbalance. The reason we're in such dire straits financially, is because we DONT produce anything anymore (compared to what we consume that is produce by others). Many cars may be produced in the USA. But, for the first time, the majority are built by foreign companies. That means that the capital made from those plants is not actually American capital. That capital goes to the foreign countries.

50-60 years ago I 100% agree with you. We're not the same country we were then.

We may not have the highest amount of produced cars in the world, but this isn't a contest. We still produce hundreds and thousands of cars every year, and that alone shows massive industrial capacity. And great example, we produce Boeings, what other country can do that, only a couple (France is the only one I can think of now). Once again, you can't produce anything remotely the size of 747 without a massive production capabilities. But you know, we don't only produce Boeings, we produce Space Shuttles, rocket fuel, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, ISS parts, HMMWVs, trucks and cars, guns, ammunition, cargo ships, and Cruise liners. BUT WAIT! There's more! We also make highways, houses, record braking skyscrapers, dams, power plants, roads, railroads, powelines, factories to make all these things, food, McDonalds, computers, board games, toys, art work, websites, etc. etc. ECT! You cannot deny the industrial poweress of the United States. Sure, we may pale in comparison to the car output of Japan and the electronics output of China, but there is a whole world out there besides those countries, and do we sure do kick its ass in industrial power.


@Bahmo: Sure, with debate it may take longer, but through debate we learn, and make more informed decisions.

#1 - I most certainly do NOT watch Fox News. Or MSNBC. Or CNN.

#2 - Notice I said many people ARE against the war. But, the fact remains that being against the war comes down to being "against the troops" in the overwhelming majority of the country & that leads to being called unpatriotic.

#3 - produce Space Shuttles, rocket fuel, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, battleships, destroyers, ISS parts, HMMWVs, trucks and cars, guns, ammunition, cargo ships, and Cruise liners. BUT WAIT! There's more! We also make highways, houses, record braking skyscrapers, dams, power plants, roads, railroads, powelines, factories to make all these things, food, McDonalds, computers, board games, toys, art work, websites, etc. etc. ECT!

Spaceship parts are made in Taiwan. The next 10/13 things you list are produced by and for the military industrial complex. Hmmm...more militarism traits. Every country that is not completely backwards produces: highways, houses, skyscrapers, dams, power plants, railroads, etc., etc.

Maybe we should give EVERY country the IND trait then? That seems to be what you're getting at. Since we make LESS of EACH per capita & per GDP compared to the next 12 countries...I'd say we are not doing so hot with production (outside of military production).

Food & service industries (McDonalds, etc.) - that is true. We do produce a majority of world food. But that is not industrious.

Here is how this is going to be solved:

The mod is coming with USA: AGG/IMP.
When you or anyone else DL's the mod and wants to change it...simply go into the XML and change it.

By the way...I finished all the leaderhead pictures. So thats done. The last thing is getting the last few nation traits done that need to be completed.

Next up, I believe, will probably be finding art for the unique units and buildings. I've done a LOT of work...so I'll leave that up to whoever wants to get it done. Please post info about that in the Unique units/buildings threads.

The last trait missing on your list in the Organization Thread is Palestine's. I vote for giving it the same traits as Israel (PRO/EXP) because of said reasons (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8414053&postcount=173) and for not siding with anyone of them. Then we'd have a complete list.

Do we need unique art for unique buildings and units for the first test release (Besides...I think all existing art for our unique units has already been found and listed)? I mean it isn't important for the game to work. This is something we could do later... Maybe first fixing the map and all the errors popping up when you start the mod, setting international relations and off we go?

The last trait missing on your list in the Organization Thread is Palestine's. I vote for giving it the same traits as Israel (PRO/EXP) because of said reasons and for not siding with anyone of them. Then we'd have a complete list.

Do we need unique art for unique buildings and units for the first test release (Besides...I think all existing art for our unique units has already been found and listed)? I mean it isn't important for the game to work. This is something we could do later... Maybe first fixing the map and all the errors popping up when you start the mod, setting international relations and off we go?

Sorry, I missed labeling Palestine. I labeled them as you suggested. And we don't need the unique art. But simply gathering it up would be nice so we can at least have something done ahead of time for a change.

Leaders...civs...player colors...traits (besides a future adjustment of spiritual) are all completed. So, we have all the XML done for all that - FINALLY.

With a little luck...the game should start up correctly now. I will test later on today/tomorrow and see if any errors come up, and then run it by the people that can help.

Next up: Decide what cities get what types of buildings (officiallly) in the map development thread. Work on the religions change to ideologies and implement into game. Then final work which would be units & tech tree adjustments to place into the mod.

#1 - I most certainly do NOT watch Fox News. Or MSNBC. Or CNN.

#2 - Notice I said many people ARE against the war. But, the fact remains that being against the war comes down to being "against the troops" in the overwhelming majority of the country & that leads to being called unpatriotic.

#3 -

Spaceship parts are made in Taiwan. The next 10/13 things you list are produced by and for the military industrial complex. Hmmm...more militarism traits. Every country that is not completely backwards produces: highways, houses, skyscrapers, dams, power plants, railroads, etc., etc.

Maybe we should give EVERY country the IND trait then? That seems to be what you're getting at. Since we make LESS of EACH per capita & per GDP compared to the next 12 countries...I'd say we are not doing so hot with production (outside of military production).

Food & service industries (McDonalds, etc.) - that is true. We do produce a majority of world food. But that is not industrious.

Here is how this is going to be solved:

The mod is coming with USA: AGG/IMP.
When you or anyone else DL's the mod and wants to change it...simply go into the XML and change it.


I think the military-industrial complex is alone enough to give the U.S. the IND trait, at least it is slightly more accurate that IMP. Anyway, I thought we weren't supposed to take political sides in this mod? Saying the U.S. is IMP clearly a biased approach the U.S. foreign policy. Plus anyway, for the time that this mod takes place, the IMP trait is utterly useless, there is absolutely no need to build settlers, since the world is already pretty much settled. The IND trait on the other hand is slightly more useful, as it provides a 50% increase in wonder production, which seems to fit the U.S. very well. Actually, the entire argument about who is industrious, and who produces what doesn't actually make sense in accordance with he trait, which gives a boost to wonder production forges, nothing to do with factories or industrial complexes (that's ORG, which I think could work for the U.S. too).

Oh and plus, giving U.S. IMP, besides how incorrect it is, will make the game extremely unbalanced. Because then you have a massive production powerhouse of a country (America's lands and cities will have tons of hammers pouring in), that will have one of the largest military's in the world, and said military is involved in two wars, when you put that with AGG (free combat promotion) and IMP (Great General production is increased by 100%), by god how isn't America going to take over the world? (don't even bother factoring in the nukes, which America will have a ton of). IND will balance it out a little, so the most militarily dominate country in the world, won't get a massive list of bonuses towards it.


Sorry for continuing this debate, but the above realization just made me have to continue this.

I think eventually we will need to change the traits to ones that fit the modern world, and maybe add some that RoM has, like Seafaring (extra navy Promotion and double ports, dockyards etc), Agricultural (plots with 4f get 1 more, double granary, etc), Espionage Active (had a better name) (+2 espionage points per city, double intelligence agency, prison, security agency).

As for america i don't know much about them to be biased and i think IMP is a bit overpowered, and IND does seem to fit as although their companies don't produce in the USA the actual country do produce the wonders of the modern world, even if they are mostly immigrants.

May I ask why Matt gets the final say in this debate when nobody else seems to agree with him?

May I ask why Matt gets the final say in this debate when nobody else seems to agree with him?

idk why, in reality it should be NikNaks decision, since its his mod, but then again this mod is being made democratically, so we should all come to a decision on it, not just Matty's own personal opinion. Should we make a poll?

it isnt everyone else and i think its fair to go his way for now. it isnt a major issue anyway (well it might be for americans).

it isnt everyone else and i think its fair to go his way for now. it isnt a major issue anyway (well it might be for americans).

This is why I think it is a major issue (not just how incorrect it is, but it is also a game balance issue)



Oh and plus, giving U.S. IMP, besides how incorrect it is, will make the game extremely unbalanced. Because then you have a massive production powerhouse of a country (America's lands and cities will have tons of hammers pouring in), that will have one of the largest military's in the world, and said military is involved in two wars, when you put that with AGG (free combat promotion) and IMP (Great General production is increased by 100%), by god how isn't America going to take over the world? (don't even bother factoring in the nukes, which America will have a ton of). IND will balance it out a little, so the most militarily dominate country in the world, won't get a massive list of bonuses towards it.

May I ask why Matt gets the final say in this debate when nobody else seems to agree with him?

I totally agree with Matty. All his points are totally right. USA should be AGG/IMP (as I have pointed out far earlier in this thread).

I agree as well (as I posted on the previous page). For the first beta, America is AGG/IMP.

Shouldn't Bush be replaced by Obama? Bush only lead for half a month...

This list is waaay out of date. Check the end of the new civ list thread.

Poland: Must be Protective, as very preoccupied with perceived threat of renewed Russian aggression, and are actively seeking US help to upgrade their armed forces with both training and the whole 'Son of Star Wars' episode. I also think Philosophical would fit well, for simliar reasons as I recommend creative for EU, also compared to their in game size they do produce above their fair share of 'great' people. Another option would be spiritual as Poland is a very Catholic country. So Poland: Pro, Phi
Actually i think you got it wrong. Industries are very important in our economy. Silesia, Poznan, Warsaw and the Tri-City dominate Poland. Not to mention that we are rapidly modernizing our standards in well everything, since the fall of communism. Philosophical is kinda random. Spiritual doesn't make sense, unless Italy and Spain are Spiritual to. Poland is not much more religious than Italy or Spain is.

I suggest Pro/Ind.

Actually i think you got it wrong. Industries are very important in our economy. Silesia, Poznan, Warsaw and the Tri-City dominate Poland. Not to mention that we are rapidly modernizing our standards in well everything, since the fall of communism. Philosophical is kinda random. Spiritual doesn't make sense, unless Italy and Spain are Spiritual to. Poland is not much more religious than Italy or Spain is.

I suggest Pro/Ind.

Ok, well if you're Polish then i'll defer to you.

To be clear, I don't disagree re industry, my Polish girlfriend assures me of this, (congrats on your smoking hot ladies by the way), but the reason i was recommending philospohical was partly because it's bonuses are more use for a civ which is finding itself sandwiched between many more powerful civs. I also think Poland has a very rich and proud history of 'great people', so this bonus seemed reasonable. Like I say though, I totally see industrial, so if you would prefer to change this then I can agree with you.

which one of the two would you replace with what? i think it's appropriate. in my lifetime i haven't experienced a leader who started so many major wars and spent so much of a nation's money on war operations. hmmm wait, there's milošević...ok, he would have had these traits too, but he's dead now.

So many major wars? To my knowledge, George Bush only started the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, not the "so many major wars" you claim he started. Not to mention that the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars are nowhere near the status of major war. WWII was a major war, but the Iraqi conflicts almost certainly aren't.

Electric, this is an old argument i think and the decisions have already been made.

But Ianinsane i think is right that no other country has recently started as many or as large wars as America. Let's not be pedantic and argue about what is and is not a major war. The troops committed, time committed and amount spent in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf anything in MY lifetime. I don't know how old Ianinsane is, but I'm guessing he wasn't around for WW2.

America's military budget is extremly large, compared not only to other nations but also to other expenditure and GDP. Whilst the likes of Scandinavia are ensuring they have the world's best healthcare, USA spends its taxes on war tools. I'm not taking sides in any political sense, but this is just how it is. Military and world empire/control/influence is very important to the USA, in almost anyone's lifetime (post Pearl Harbour anyway).

The point is that almost everyone sees USA (note we are talking about national traits as opposed to leader traits) as aggressive and nearly as large a consensus is there for imperialist.

Yeah, I figured it was old. I'm just one of the few people out there who feel that Bush wasn't as bad as many people claim he was.

Ok, well if you're Polish then i'll defer to you.

To be clear, I don't disagree re industry, my Polish girlfriend assures me of this, (congrats on your smoking hot ladies by the way), but the reason i was recommending philospohical was partly because it's bonuses are more use for a civ which is finding itself sandwiched between many more powerful civs. I also think Poland has a very rich and proud history of 'great people', so this bonus seemed reasonable. Like I say though, I totally see industrial, so if you would prefer to change this then I can agree with you.

I see where you are coming from, I honestly don't know if any of the traits fit except for Protective. (and even that Isn't accurate, we aren't afraid of being absorbed by Russian sphere of influence again, it's not going to happen any time soon. We just recently lived through the atrocities of Russia, and know what they are capable of, so we just squint our eyes and go running over to the big fish (USA, EU) complaining about Russian aggression whenever something like Georgia happens.)

As for the bold, If I marry a latin women here, imagine my children! :eek: Polish - Latin mix!

As for the bold, If I marry a latin women here, imagine my children! :eek: Polish - Latin mix!

:groucho:


...The creepiness of that smiley is not really intended... though its the best one we've got :goodjob:

Has this list been updated? Bush Jr. is already out of office, and I'm expecting that some of the names on the list will change as well. Another question: will the leader be the leader by title or in the case of more than one leader, the one with the most influence? For example, say there is a country that is a constitutional monarchy: UK. There is a monarchy, and a PM appointed by the majority party in Parliament. Would the leader be Queen Elizabeth II or Gordon Brown as of June 27th, 2007?

when exactly, does this mod start? for example if it is starting on January first 2010 then the best leaders would probably be David Cameron(the conservative party WILL win) for the UK and Tony Blair for the EU (most likely looking candidate) or should we go with the best known candidates for the general time period and make Tony Blair the Prime Minister, oh and Barack Obama should be president. i suggest checking all leaders to see if they are still in office.
ps. has anyone figured out a way to change leaders mid game?

oh and in answer to taxation, in constitutional monarchy's(england, spain,) it should be the prime minister or president not the royal becuase the king/queen has no power.

England is not a monarchy: the UK is. Also, you don't get presidents in monarchies - that's sort of the point of the monarch themselves.

UK is powerfull enogh to stand on it is own
separate from E.U.

when exactly, does this mod start? for example if it is starting on January first 2010 then the best leaders would probably be David Cameron(the conservative party WILL win) for the UK and Tony Blair for the EU (most likely looking candidate) or should we go with the best known candidates for the general time period and make Tony Blair the Prime Minister, oh and Barack Obama should be president. i suggest checking all leaders to see if they are still in office.We've got all the current leaders in our current build. I don't have time to update this list constantly, but we're keeping the mod itself as recent as possible. We won't be putting in Cameron unless he's elected, despite its inevitability, as the main scenario will start at an arbitrary date like Jan 1st as you've said, when Brown will still be in power.ps. has anyone figured out a way to change leaders mid game?Unfortunately, we've had trouble attracting coders to the project, so things like that are on the back-burner.oh and in answer to taxation, in constitutional monarchies(england, spain,) it should be the prime minister or president not the royal becuase the king/queen has no power.We aim to put the most powerful member of the government or royalty who exercises those powers. In that way the Queen, although technically the head of state, would not be the leader for the UK.UK is powerfull enogh to stand on it is own
separate from E.U.This debate has gone round and round in circles, and we've since decided to completely revamp the civ list. Check the latest posts in the "Final Civ List" thread for more details, as I don't have the new list to hand.

Why not put in Obama as president.

Please? I don't want to have to play as Bush :P

Did you even read my last post? -_-

OOPS. I read it after reading this thread and posting..............

Insert "I are stoopid" pic here.....

Mmmk. Got it.
Congratulations on making the World Mod 2009; looks pretty awesome from what I'm looking at. C:

Argentina: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Charismatic, Financial)

you mean :charismatic, financial, CORRUPT

PD:this will be a great mod :)

This will not be a mod, period, unless somebody gets off his ass and helps me.