Updated again: Thanks Genghis Kai for the, almost certainly, final civ list.

We appreciate everyone's help a great deal, but please, no further suggestions for changes unless you are personally working on the map. ;)

The updated list (53 civs):

Nation (includes)

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

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

Saudi Arabia
Israel
Palestine
Syria
Iran
Pakistan
Bangladesh
India

Kazakhstan
Mongolia
China
Taiwan
North Korea
South Korea
Japan

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

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

Neutral States (Switzerland, Turkmenistan and Costa Rica)

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

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

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

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

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


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

Just to check, the additions from the other list are:

Georgia
Thailand
Vietnam
Latin American socialist allies
Syria

Correct? If so, I'll do the flags right now.

Yes, those are the additions. So if you like that list and we can do it, go for it.

I checked out a bunch of the other flags, they're good bro.

How detailed will the prep-game map be? Do you need to know the location of national Wonders? or will that be handled by the players spending points at game start?

NikNaks I hate to say this, but I think we should add two more.

Ukraine

and

Belarus

Priority to Ukraine certainly, Belarus could be minor nations, but if it doesn't hurt it would be a nice vassal for Russia to start with (now they have zero possibly?).

This would really make Eastern Europe more interesting. After thinking about it, it's hard to leave out a country as large, powerful, and independent as the Ukraine when we have less important countries. A bonus for us is that Ukraine already has a high quality leaderhead made (in CivGold).

If we've reached our limit we should consider bumping one out (really hate to say this after all the work you have done). But that's just my opinion, it's your call buddy.

Final revision idea from me I promise. :D

Can Use the 40 civ mod component, and you can fit more civs in. Just a heck alot more work.

EDIT: nvm looks like your way ahead of me lol

and i can see if i can convert bf2 and there mods files and get some modern warfare units for you guys

The newest additions are:

Belarus
Ukraine
Peru
Chile
Algeria
Angola
Sri Lanka
Ethiopia


Main Reasons:
Belarus- Russia needs to start with a puppet
Ukraine- Too powerful and independent to leave out
Sri Lanka- Same as Ukraine

South America and Africa are too big on GEM to leave out:
Peru (ideologically leaning right, towards Columbia/America)
Chile (ideologically leaning left, towards Venezuela)

Algeria
Angola
Ethiopia

Belarus: Alexander Lukashenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Lukashenko)
Ukraine: Viktor Yushchenko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yushchenko) (Civ Gold has a great LH)
Peru: Alan García (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Garc%C3%ADa)
Chile: Michelle Bachelet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Bachelet)
Algeria: Abdelaziz Bouteflika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdelaziz_Bouteflika)
Angola: José Eduardo dos Santos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Eduardo_dos_Santos)
Sri Lanka: Mahinda Rajapaksa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahinda_Rajapaksa)
Ethiopia: Girma Wolde-Giorgis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girma_Wolde-Giorgis)


Unfortunately for all but Yushchenko we will have to find art.

I sure hope my computer doesn't explode from playing this! All of these countries are going to be a bit of a burden, even if it's realistic.

Well Bahmo, we'll give it a try. This is our ideal; looking closely at the GEM map, NikNaks and I agreed that these civs will make for the most accurate game. Leaving any of them out will either take away critical game situations, or make other civs/unions too large. All these civs will fit really nicely on the GEM.

Now, that being said, if we build this thing and it is unusable on most people's computers, we can always remove a few them. Alternatly we could build a second map with less civs for people who find the full one too slow. There is no harm in including them all in the mod, even if a few end up being left out of the final map. In the future we could have more than one map, situational/regional maps are bound to be built once this mod is complete.

We're all doing all this work, we may as well see how perfect we can make it.

and i can see if i can convert bf2 and there mods files and get some modern warfare units for you guys

That would be rad. Please do. :)


Regarding the civ limit, we have someone making the modifications that allow us to have 50.

Alphebetised list:
African Union
Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Australia
Belarus
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Egypt
Ethiopia
European Union
Failed States
Georgia
Independent African States
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Japan
Kazakhstan
Latin Americans
Mexico
Minor Nations
Myanmar
NATO
Neutral States
Nigeria
North Korea
Pakistan
Palestine
Peru
Philippines
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Syria
Taiwan
Thailand
Ukraine
United States of America
Venezuela
Vietnam

Linking into DVS' post, possibly go with two games - one with the current list and another based around continents. The second one could also have countries like Russia, China, USA and Canada as separate Civs. Maybe split Europe into old eastern block and old American allies. But there would still be way fewer Civs and it would still be pretty accurate as to the world situation.

Yep, that might be interesting. Maybe split Asia or Africa into two, though.

I'm sure we will come up with a variety of different maps after we get the mod working. :D

In addition to one with less civs (probably made on a smaller map), I would like to make some situational scenarios. So for example, an Israel/Palestine scenario, and Taiwan, Kashmir, etc etc. I suspect scenario building will become a real focus once the mod has actually been completed.

Once it's finished (v1.0 at least), the sky is the limit as far as what kind of scenarios people can make.

The 48 Civ, GEM scenario will simply be our masterpiece. :D

That does sound pretty good. I've got a couple of ideas already...

Alphebetised list:
African Union
Algeria
Angola
Argentina
Australia
Belarus
Brazil
Canada
Chile
China
Colombia
Egypt
Ethiopia
European Union
Failed States
Georgia
Independent African States
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Japan
Kazakhstan
Latin Americans
Mexico
Minor Nations
Myanmar
NATO
Neutral States
Nigeria
North Korea
Pakistan
Palestine
Peru
Philippines
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Syria
Taiwan
Thailand
Ukraine
United States of America
Venezuela
Vietnam


That's just under 50 civs. Now the GEM Modern Resources map I had in mind fits - as is - only 36 civs, so I just want to make sure if it's OK if I go ahead with that map (adding 12-14 civs manually to the WBS) or if someone has a better idea to fit all the civs.:confused:

BTW::newyear:

No, go ahead and add in the others. We're supposed to have more than normal.

Alrighty. I'm starting on January 2009, Marathon speed and time progressing in weeks.;)

Perfect! :D

Just wanted to say: :newyear:, y'all!

Same to you Jeelen, and to everyone else.

BTW, your plans for the map sound perfect to me as well.

Just wonder how are you going to represent Malaysia and Singapore? Combine them into Indonesia?

Alternatively, how about adding ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)?

I guess we'll split it between Thailand and Indonesia. The continental part to Thailand, the island part to Indonesia...

As of now, they will be a part of our "minor civilization" civ.

We decided to include as many south east Asian micro states as possible, and forgo having a united ASEAN. From what I have read, the ASEAN as a trade group is a lot about keeping the member nations independent, as opposed to say the EU, who's goal is uniting foreign policies/economies.

Down the road (after version 1.0's release) we will most likely create a second scenario, which has a lot less civs, and more unions. The ASEAN will certainly be a part of that one.

Since I am doing city placement now, I would like to know more clearly about the civ list in here. (I suppose the list on the first post in this thread is the latest?)

1) Western Europe seems to be grouped into EU, neutrals and NATO, am I correct?

2) What is the difference between independent African and African Union?

I can see the intelligent reasons behind these groupings. Hopefully, they won't look too ugly when they are actually plotted on the map :)

Let's see:

1) Yes, that's right. The UK is part of NATO and the Swiss are neutral, otherwise they are all included in the EU civ.

2) In essence, if the countries are not either in the Failed States list, nor the Independant African States list (both are in the opening post), then they are to be used in the African Union.

NATO civ constitutes:
UK capital
Turkey
Iceland
Norway
Croatia
Albania

Everything else except for switzerland is EU, cept for Ukraine and Belarus, they are independant Civs.

Looking at it im really looking forward to playing NATO, stranglehold over the North Sea, Bosphorus Straits and English Channel :D

Glad to have you on the team Genghis_Kai! Obviously your work creating the GEM had already been a huge part of this mod, before you even found us.

The most up to date civilization/leader list is here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=7653859&postcount=71). I'm pretty sure the first post here is accurate too, I'll go over it.

All of those civs are in our CIV4CivilizationInfos file, and will be in the map I'll be uploading tomorrow morning.

1) Western Europe- exactly right.

2) Independent African states will be Morocco (capital), Libya, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and possibly others including one or more on the ivory coast.

Some countries in Africa will be failed states; (Somalia, Equatorial Guinea, Chad.). We can change these as governments fall or become unstable, war breaks out, etc. Perhaps someone can find a better list.

Others have their own civs (Nigeria, Sudan, etc), for some we can also use the minor nations civ; and then the rest will be African Union. The AU ones should be countries that are more closely aligned with the USA/west.

Africa is going to take some playing around with to get perfect. Basically it should be splintered as much as possible with the civs we have available to us. I think the idea is to have every African country represented by at least one city.

If you'd like me to start by taking a crack at they way I see us doing Africa and possibly the middle east, I could do that, you could improve on it and then do the rest. Or if you want to do it all, by all means please go for it. :-)

how's this comming on lads ? i've been thinking of doing a modern day one myself , but have struggled to get to grips with XML as i now have a girlfriend

as soon as you're ready to do some basic testers i'm your man , looking forward to launching those nukes or being the obama second comming depending ..

Glad you're interested, let us know if you want to help out getting this finished.

The best status update is probably the one in my signature.

sure , i'd probably be best suited to city placement and sizing and building plotting for all those citys if i was to contribute , but you all seem to be way ahead of me and jeleen seems to have the map in hand , so if i can get first dibs on actually playing it , i can give you guys some directions on bugs and A(un)I pitfalls

as i think i'll die if i have to wait till CivV for this mod to come out , closest i've seen to it was maxriga's , but the map was . .. .. .. . and nowhere near enough civs involved to make it interesting

anyway , i've inadvertently brought this into the wrong thread seeing as i've so many tabs open at once checking out this excellent idea , nice to see all us nerds comming together

edit: accident

Ok, we will continue the discussion that started in the map thread here.

We are choosing starting civics for every civ. We may as well also pick a favorite civic for each. I will quote the ones that Bahmo has finished in the other thread.

Mexico
Government: Presidential
Legal: Darwinism
Labor: Tribalism
Economy: Deregulated
Media: State-Censored

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


America
Government: Presidential
Legal: Internationalism
Labor: Organized
Economy: Deregulated
Media: Corporate

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

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

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

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

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

Bahmo, is changing the Religion category to Media the only change I should make there?

Also, do you have any other ideas for images to use as buttons, or should we start looking for them? I can make the buttons in five minutes once I have the images.

Since the single favorite civic is very important (civs stick to it, try to get others to convert), I think we should pick one category, and pick all the favorite civics from it.

Economy probably, that is what most countries argue over, and seems to be the main difference between rival nations.

We should also get our ideologies finalized, countries will also try to get you to switch to their ideology. These two areas are closely related, Bahmo I would love to hear your thoughts on what we should use for final ideologies. (everyone else too)

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


A couple of these civics need to be changed ( though I don't know what to change them to, I don't know what the civics are)

Legal is not Martial Law, the military is not in control of Israel's legal court. Labor, I'm not sure what professional is (could you clear this up ). And the media is not state censored. Israel has one of the freest presses in the world, and is very far away from being censored by the government.

A couple of these civics need to be changed ( though I don't know what to change them to, I don't know what the civics are)

Legal is not Martial Law, the military is not in control of Israel's legal court. Labor, I'm not sure what professional is (could you clear this up ). And the media is not state censored. Israel has one of the freest presses in the world, and is very far away from being censored by the government.

In the case of media, thanks for the information, so by all means change that one. As to legal, it's important to remember that when I talk about legal civics in Civ4, I don't mean constitutions. Mapping out an entire constitution would in itself take not only many new civics, but many new civic categories. So while Israel does have laws rather than force of arms, many parts are also under martial law, and as it stands now it's the only Civic that allows conscription. In fact, based on what I've heard of him, maybe Martial Law should even be Olmert's favorite civic, but again, more info is needed. Additionally, it's not all that consequential that Martial Law fell under the legal category; it's just that it fit best there, and we couldn't think of much else.

I don't understand why you made EU and NATO instead of european civs. The civilisations of europe are not nearly as merged as you portray them to be. They each have independant leaders and politics, and furthermore, if NATO declares sanctions or war, not all nations go through with it. Just look at Iraq. My colledge studies have just lead me to read a lot about the EU and the EU you describe, as a single nation without teritorial souverenty will not come to be in many years (if not decades).
I don't realy see how they could all count as the same nation.

thankyou for your interest but this one if firmly settled for version 1 after many many debates of the subject.

I am not debating it or trying to change it. I am just confused as to what posesed you to do so? I find it interesting.

I am not debating it or trying to change it. I am just confused as to what posesed you to do so? I find it interesting.

We already had a massive debate in the thread "What to do for Europe (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=281157)", if your curious about our decision, check it out :)

We already had a massive debate in the thread "What to do for Europe (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=281157)", if your curious about our decision, check it out :)

Thanks, I shall.
Lol, I saw it. So it was a arbitrary desision. Let the people vote and than make the desision regardles. :( To bad, I was realy hoping for some goor deason. Thanks once again for your time.

I'm not sure what the vote count was when the decision actually was made. I think a lot of people voted after the desicion was made.
But BTW, we don't have a NATO civ anymore. During the process of map balancing we decided to split NATO into UK, Norway and Turkey. We were aware of the problem that the EU is not completely merged and agreed to represent that by having UK as its own civ.
The fact that not all NATO countries go to war when one of them is will probably be represented by having Canada, USA, UK, Norway, EU and Turkey have all defensive pacts with each other. So when one is attacked all other NATO states declare war, just as it is the Casus foederis in reality.

The (real) final civ list can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7721371&postcount=190).

Thanks, I shall.
Lol, I saw it. So it was a arbitrary desision. Let the people vote and than make the desision regardles. :( To bad, I was realy hoping for some goor deason. Thanks once again for your time.


lol. Well PPQ_Purple, I'm sorry our 10 months of hard work haven't lived up to your standards. On our next mod we will spend more time attempting to please you.

lol. Well PPQ_Purple, I'm sorry our 10 months of hard work haven't lived up to your standards. On our next mod we will spend more time attempting to please you.

Lol, no one ever can. I am a comunist utopist.:)
I sort of like the idea of 1 world 1 nation, or 1 europe 1 nation.
So I just hoped you had agood explanation for it. Something that holds water so to say.
And no need to get bitter now.:mischief:

Thanks, I shall.
Lol, I saw it. So it was a arbitrary desision. Let the people vote and than make the desision regardles. To bad, I was realy hoping for some goor deason. Thanks once again for your time.


That's not true!!! If I may defend the decision and the people who took it.
First most people voted vor an EU, that's completely clear. Yes they voted for an special type of it, a sort of compromise between the two possibilities, but that would have been very difficult to implement in the game in fact I can imagine. Furthermore I don't really think it would have worked well with the current civ-mechanis. So it's better that they didn't make it like that.
Moreover there was actually a very massive and long debate in many threads, although you might not have read all of it.
I live in a member state of the European Union (Austria) and therefore followed very closely and with great interest the whole debate. I brought up my arguments like many, many others and there were many very good arguments (for both solutions)! Eventually I'm very content with the decision the modders made and think it will work very well and also be quiet realistic. And I can also explain why:
The EU isn't a type of superstate like the US, that's entirely true. But it's nor a loose alliance of states which share a common market and nothing more. Maybe you might think that if you only learned about the insitutions of the Union and the power it has, but there's more. The european countries aren't only binded together via the EU (which is also already much more than only a trade-agreement)! They share many common values and although the national states fiercely defend their national power and privileges, in fact they act in many political fields very similiar and often also beforehand arranged. What I want to say is, that the EU might not seem as a superpower itself because many important decisions are still made in Berlin, Paris, Rome and not in Brussels, but in reality Europe acts in agreement in many, many political fields and therefore should also be represented in the game by one european civs for the states of the EU.

Well, I think the decision was a good one and the modders let go the debate fairly long enough and I also explained why I think it was a good one. I hope that helped you a little bit ;).

greetings
Ben

Thanks Lord Wolf, very very well put.

The vote we had was a little confusing and not really worded properly; and it was basically split. As Lord Wolf mentions, most of the decision making came based on the discussion that occurred over about 3 or 4 main threads (and 6 months or so).

Ok, I updated the first post in this thread with the absolute, dead final, no changes possible Civ List, that has been modified to better suit our map (thanks to the expertise of Genghis Kai, and contributions from others). Well, unless...

lol

A couple of these civics need to be changed ( though I don't know what to change them to, I don't know what the civics are)

Legal is not Martial Law, the military is not in control of Israel's legal court. Labor, I'm not sure what professional is (could you clear this up ). And the media is not state censored. Israel has one of the freest presses in the world, and is very far away from being censored by the government.


hmm, I was just reading something this afternoon, and it totally related to our mod. (lol, this thing is taking over my life!)

At first I agreed with you about Israel's media, but now I disagree. It is completely state censored. I didn't realize that until I read:

On May 23, 2008, Finkelstein was denied entry to Israel because, according to unnamed Israeli security officials, of suspicions that "he had contact with elements 'hostile' to Israel". Finkelstein was questioned after his arrival at Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv and placed on a flight back to Amsterdam, his point of origin. Officials said that the decision to deport Finkelstein was connected to his "anti-Zionist" opinions and criticism of the Israeli government. He was banned from entering Israel for 10 years.

hmm, I was just reading something this afternoon, and it totally related to our mod. (lol, this thing is taking over my life!)

At first I agreed with you about Israel's media, but now I disagree. It is completely state censored. I didn't realize that until I read:

But is that Israel's media? Was he working for an Israeli newspaper, television station, or radio station? It seems as if the government is protective about what media gets into the country so it can protect its own interests, but it isn't oppressive to its own media.

Splitting hairs there I think. If a country represses international media, it certainly doesn't have a free press.

Also, we should make sure not to give free media civics to any country with journalists in prison.

http://cpj.org/imprisoned/2008.php

Sadly that list includes Israel and many others.

I am totally with you, DVS.
Another good source whether to determine media civics is the press freedom index (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29031) of Reporters without Borders'.
They have excellent maps where we can figure out which civic to choose for which civ.

http://www.rsf.org/IMAGES/cartes/baro.gif
http://www.rsf.org/IMAGES/cartes/afrique.gif
http://www.rsf.org/IMAGES/cartes/ameriques.gif
http://www.rsf.org/IMAGES/cartes/asie.gif
http://www.rsf.org/IMAGES/cartes/europe.gif
http://www.rsf.org/IMAGES/cartes/europe2.gif
http://www.rsf.org/IMAGES/cartes/mo.gif

Perhaps I should have coded more media civics, but at least we need to change some suggestions based on this. The results don't surprise me very much, but at least some change needs to be made between State-run and State-censored. So North Korea, Burma, Turkmenistan, and Eritrea--wait; what the hell is Eritrea--being at the bottom means they should have State-Run media, but China and Vietnam, though pretty low, tend to welcome foreign stuff in so long as it's safe, so that's just censored, meaning Russia and Mexico fall into the State-Censored category as well.

Alternately, though, press freedom might have to distinguish between certain types of restrictions. So there you could make a difference between China, where certain things are clearly illegal, and Mexico, Afghanistan, and Iraq, where people aren't technically banned from saying things, but do run the risk of being killed for it, not even necessarily by the government so much as by criminals the government can't control. These sorts of distinctions might need to be further addressed if we want to be realistic.

Alternately, though, press freedom might have to distinguish between certain types of restrictions. So there you could make a difference between China, where certain things are clearly illegal, and Mexico, Afghanistan, and Iraq, where people aren't technically banned from saying things, but do run the risk of being killed for it, not even necessarily by the government so much as by criminals the government can't control. These sorts of distinctions might need to be further addressed if we want to be realistic.
If I might be so bold as to counterdict you. Why would they make any diference. While these things are diferent in how they play out, the end resault is the same (e.g. You risk geting inprisoned/killed by someone else). Civ has made many such compromises anyway.

If I might be so bold as to counterdict you. Why would they make any diference. While these things are diferent in how they play out, the end resault is the same (e.g. You risk geting inprisoned/killed by someone else). Civ has made many such compromises anyway.

because in one country (china) it is officially sanctioned by The Law and in another (such as Mexico) it is a direct result of the Failure of the Rule of Law.

If the governments in Iraq, Afgahn and Mexico could adequately enforce there laws all would be well. However with the likes of china, well, you embarrass the state, your going to jail and "re-education" as the Law dictates.

Exactly. Different situations which have similar effects don't mean you should use the same civic for both of them, because different civics can have similar effects, as well. Also, if a civic's name is wrong, it definitely needs to be changed. So it looks like that settles it in terms of whether or not I need to add more Media civics--I do; at least I have to add one for the default situation where a state is too weak to even prevent the fallout from media, and quite possibly two civics representing varying degrees of censorship would be a good idea, too.


If the governments in Iraq, Afgahn and Mexico could adequately enforce there laws all would be well.

Unfortunately, no it wouldn't. Though things would certainly be more peaceful, they still would be bogged down by the backwardness that their populations espouse due to all the theocratic leanings.

well there we differ in opinion

If the Police can be taught there duty to the law is more important than what mummy and daddy told them in 1975. The Law is the Law and if held up by the State and vigorously enforced it can be made to work.

Hey sorry if this has been answered elsewhere- i've tried to have a look...

But can i ask about civ names? I have seen in the leaderhead screenshots that you are using terms such as 'republic of', 'federal republic' etc etc.

However, Kai's final civ list gives only the single name e.g. China, Myanmar.

Can I recommend that we do it this way for 2 really key reasons:

1) Civics can change- no use calling yourself a republic when you've just had a totalitarian revolution.

2) When searching in the diplo screen or elsewhere it is much easier to recognise the civs by name only, and not searching through 39 republics or whatever (which may also go off screen)

I agree, and that's the reason why I've used the simplified names.

Hey sorry if this has been answered elsewhere- i've tried to have a look...

But can i ask about civ names? I have seen in the leaderhead screenshots that you are using terms such as 'republic of', 'federal republic' etc etc.

However, Kai's final civ list gives only the single name e.g. China, Myanmar.

Can I recommend that we do it this way for 2 really key reasons:

1) Civics can change- no use calling yourself a republic when you've just had a totalitarian revolution.

2) When searching in the diplo screen or elsewhere it is much easier to recognise the civs by name only, and not searching through 39 republics or whatever (which may also go off screen)

Well, all I know if that the RevolutionDCM mod we're using has DynamicCivNames mod included within it, which assigns unique names to civs depending on civics, size, vassalage and such. For example, a country using State Property will be called "People's Republic of ...", a country using all of the last civics in the list will be called the "Free Republic of..." and so on and so forth.

Oh yeah, even though the name is changed on the diplo screen, its still shown as "China" or Germany" on the scoreboard, so no need to worry :D.

Returning to our Civics conversation, I have added two more Civics in the media category: "Unruly" is the default Civic, representing a country where the government has control neither of what people say, nor of what is done to them because of it. "Regulated" now lies between "Corporate" (for sale) and "State-Censored," and represents a lighter form of censorship. Others are the same as before, though with slightly finagled effects to differentiate them from the new ones.

Hence, now Mexico can be counted as having the Unruly civic, while China can be counted as having the State-Censored one.

Returning to our Civics conversation, I have added two more Civics in the media category: "Unruly" is the default Civic, representing a country where the government has control neither of what people say, nor of what is done to them because of it. "Regulated" now lies between "Corporate" (for sale) and "State-Censored," and represents a lighter form of censorship. Others are the same as before, though with slightly finagled effects to differentiate them from the new ones.

Hence, now Mexico can be counted as having the Unruly civic, while China can be counted as having the State-Censored one.

If I might so bold to say but "Unruly" just does not realy sound good. It sounds more like anarchy than freedom of speech. (witch is lore vise corect but still)
Have you considered using some other name, something like "Open" or "Free" or "Unregulated"?

Why were Norway, Iceland and Denmark merged into one Nordic civilization, while Sweden was added as a neutral state?
In my opinion, it would be a better idea to put Sweden and Denmark into the same civilization, as these two countries generally have a much more similar economic and political situation compared to Norway. And as this mod is supposed to take place this year, I guess you're also aiming to most accurately represent the nations financial situations? Why then put Iceland and Norway in the same civ? While Iceland has been hit especially hard by the current world financial crisis, while Norway hasn't been to much affected by it. Also, Iceland is in debt, while Norway has large profits each year, added to a fund which today holds 350 trillion USD.
I would be very happy if I could get an explanation for this. :)

I'll try to explain it...just let me find the right thread...

OK, here, on top of that page (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=274965&page=13) the discussion starts...

If I might so bold to say but "Unruly" just does not realy sound good. It sounds more like anarchy than freedom of speech. (witch is lore vise corect but still)
Have you considered using some other name, something like "Open" or "Free" or "Unregulated"?

I think "open" and "free" sound a little too positive, but "Unregulated" is alright. I have no time, right now, to change the file yet again.

OK, here, on top of that page (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=274965&page=13) the discussion starts...
I read it, how deeply disappointing it's too late to change anything now (or is it?). This feels so wrong, as both Sweden's and Denmark's politics are more similar to EU politics than to Norway's politics. So if we first should separate Denmark and Sweden from EU, it would be more correct to merge them into one country and leave Norway alone. Eventually, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland could be merged into an EFTA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Free_Trade_Association)-civ. I also have problems seeing why Sweden should be separated from EU just because of some opt-outs, when they are even less related to the other netutral states, which they then would become a part of.

I had the same concerns but this is definately the way the first version will be. However, it will be possible to make changes on civs for the second version.

I don't know if this has been talked about and I just started to look into this mod but how do the scores show? Like, I would assume U.S. is at top, right, followed closely by China or Russia?

who knows once the data is all put in. US China EU top 3 i would imagine.

The scoring system in CIV is highly biased toward population size. population = 50%, technologies = 20%, territories = 20% and world wonder = 10% count, and NOTHING ELSE (that is, military size, amount of gold, city improvement etc. doesn't count at all). And in the first 20 turns, territories is not even counted, making population weights 50/80 ~ 63%.

Therefore, we can predict the score based on the population size, assuming technologies and world wonder scores are roughly equal: China -> US -> EU -> India -> Japan -> Brazil -> Russia.

The scoring system in CIV is highly biased toward population size. population = 50%, technologies = 20%, territories = 20% and world wonder = 10% count, and NOTHING ELSE (that is, military size, amount of gold, city improvement etc. doesn't count at all). And in the first 20 turns, territories is not even counted, making population weights 50/80 ~ 63%.

Therefore, we can predict the score based on the population size, assuming technologies and world wonder scores are roughly equal: China -> US -> EU -> India -> Japan -> Brazil -> Russia.

Except I seem to remember from your cities excel file that in game the USA has a higher population than China?

Oh yes. You are correct.

DVS, could you edit your first post to match the final civ list that Genghis posted on here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7754633&postcount=297)?

Distinctly late question admittedly, but why are Arab states such as Oman, Yemen, Dubai and the UAE classified as minor states, rather than being lumped with Saudi Arabia? The Arab states have much more in common with their larger neighbour than with other miscellaneous minor countries throughout the world?

Updated again: Thanks Genghis Kai for the, almost certainly, final civ list.

We appreciate everyone's help a great deal, but please, no further suggestions for changes unless you are personally working on the map. ;)

The updated list (53 civs):

Nation (includes)

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

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

Saudi Arabia
Israel
Palestine
Syria
Iran
Pakistan
Bangladesh
India

Kazakhstan
Mongolia
China
Taiwan
North Korea
South Korea
Japan

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

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

Neutral States (Switzerland, Turkmenistan and Costa Rica)

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

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

I have SERIOUS issues with this Civ list.

Firstly Europe:
1) The UK is a member of the EU. I know that it was excluded on the grounds of it being involved in the Iraq war indicating it has "its own foreign policy" - as if the other 26 countries don't (surely we should be judging by the actual powers that each country has rather than the powers they use). ANY of the EU countries (aside from countries like Sweden and Ireland which are militarily neutral) could have done the same thing. Indeed, 15 of the current 27 members of the EU were members of the "coalition of the willing" and 3 of these contributed troops to the invasion itself. If you go by the 2003 membership of the EU then 6 of the the (I think) 15 members were in the coalition and even with that membership the UK wasn't the only EU country involved in the invasion.

Basically, it's an arbitrary decision to remove it - all of the countries have their own foreign policy as well as, to some extent, the organisation itself (for instance, though the commission recognises the independence of Kosovo about 1/3 of the member states do not and the response to the Georgia war last year also varied significantly among the countries). The EU's involvement in the Iran nuclear talks was through France, Germany and UK - not the EU itself.

In addition national foreign relations affect the relations of the EU itself far more than the other way around - China's relationship with the EU soured slightly for a while when Sarkozy met the Dalai Lama, Iran started making anti-EU speeches when the UK (not the EU itself) expelled Iranian diplomats recently.

Long story short, there's nothing exceptional about the UK in terms of actual powers with regards to the EU. Most of the media is incredibly europhobic and a result a lot of British people are too (to an extreme that you don't find even in the other more eurosceptic EU countries like Sweden or Denmark) but the UK isn't really a special case in any way in terms of real powers. Nor is it necessarily ideologically hugely distinct as federalism isn't really that big a force in the EU any more.

2) The EU is not a country - I realise that it's probably too much like a country now to just neglect it and include the major EU countries on their own but it's hardly a United States of Europe at the moment. I suspect that even if you exclude the UK from the EU on this map that the EU will end up ludicrously overpowered. As it would be if you looked at its real world GDP, military strength etc. (even Olympic medals) and imagined it was one country. I suspect that you'll have to alter the world map a lot to get it so that the EU isn't much more powerful than the USA, China, India or Russia.

3) Minor states and neutral states.
a) The Serbs invaded Croatia, one of the places where they invaded was a UNESCO world heritage site and another one of the places is still in ruins fifteen years later, about twenty years ago and only stopped attacking Croatia fifteen years ago - there was ethnic cleansing on both sides. The general (also war criminal, incidentally) Ante Gotovina is hero worshipped there because of his victories against the Serb Krajinka and the Republic Sprska, despite his dubious methods. You can get a bus to any country in the former Yugoslavia except Serbia, even to FYR Macedonia which would require driving through Serbia. Not to labour the point, but I don't think it's appropriate to lump them together.
b) Croatia will join the EU next year or the year after, provided it can resolve a border dispute with Slovenia. Tajikistan won't (though kudos for fitting it on the map).
c) Iceland is hardly similar to Libya, they shouldn't be in the same Civ.
d) Switzerland has quite extensive ties to the EU - it's de facto part of the EEA (it has bilateral treaties that approximate it) and it's part of the Schengen passport region. Okay, it IS neutral but its diplomatic and economic ties are quite different to those of Costa Rica or Turkmenistan.
e) In Switzerland a citizen can call a referendum on something if he or she gets enough signatories - it is probably the most democratic country in the world by a long margin. In Turkmenistan opposition politicians are lobotomised on a semi-regular basis. What civics should this civ have?

4) Norway. Norway is more deeply involved in EU projects than some actual EU states - it's part of the Schengen region, it's involved in the EU battlegroups, the WEU etc. It's a bit of a case of a rock and a hard place as giving it its own civ is pretty inaccurate but so is lumping it in with the EU. I think it might be better to make an EFTA civ and put it in permanent alliance with the EU civ.

Africa:

1) Libya is not a minor state, at least not in the African sphere. Gadaffi actually has a lot of weight in the African Union - he's called for a United States of Africa (despite it clearly not being the time for that, if there ever is a time for it) and the other heads of state aren't actually just ignoring him. Which suggests real power.

2) Sudan may split into two states in 2011 (South Sudan has home rule and can vote for independence in 2011) - it might be difficult to portray this without adding a South Sudan civ as a vassal.

3) Nigeria - I'm not sure that putting Liberia and Sierra Leone in the same civ is a good idea. For similar reasons to why I don't think Croatia and Serbia should be in the same civ - namely, recent wars.

4) I'm a bit anxious about the idea of shoving DR Congo and Angola in the same civ (particularly if it's called Angola). Also, isn't DR Congo in civil war atm?

Asia:

1) It seems odd to have the Gulf states in minor states rather than just lumping them in with Saudi Arabia and calling them "Arabian states". I realise they're not a monolithic block but surely Yemen, Brunei etc have more in common with Saudi Arabia than with Iceland, Singapore or Madagascar?

2) How are you going to get Taiwan's diplomacy to work? It's not an internationally recognised country as the PRC claims sovereignty over it.

3) Syria's got troops in Lebanon. That'll be pretty hard to represent even if Lebanon wasn't in the "minor states" civ.

I also think that minor states and failed states (to a lesser extent neutral states too) are bad ideas.

Firstly, there's no connection between these states - it'd be better to lump together nearby states (provided that they aren't at war with each other of course) than to give a random list of places scattered across the world a civ.

Secondly, the divisions seem arbitrary. Why are Libya, Singapore or UAE deemed minor states for instance? Why is Turkmenistan a neutral state rather than a failed state (it's no more or less a failed state than Uzbekistan imo)? You could call it either. Why aren't DR Congo or DPRK failed states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state)? Why is Lebanon a minor state whereas Palestine has its own civ? South America'd be a bit of a mess given this.

Thirdly, if you played well enough you could probably make the minor/failed states civ a significant player given the game mechanics of Civ IV. Or you can play as the neutral states and not be neutral. Oxymoron, anyone?

Fourthly, this map ignores unrecognised countries (except for Palestine and Taiwan). Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria or the more famous South Ossetia and Abhkazia aren't on the map. In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh or Transnistria not all of the countries involved are even on the map (there's no Armenia and no Moldova). The Tamil state doesn't exist any more and would be impossible to portray without quadrupling the size of the world map so that's okay but Somaliland isn't on this map either, even though there's definitely room on most world maps for it. Given that these are actually potentially quite significant (as the events of last year show) I think there's a bit of an oversight here.

Apologies for length and any unintentional rudeness.

EDIT: Another Europe one. Northern Ireland can't be represented at all, even though it's been quite significant over the last thirty years or so...

Ok, sorry I have limited time and I didn't get to read through your entire post, but for now, the civ list is final. This list will go unchanged until at least the beta comes out. Then we might fiddle with it for balancing issues and such, and we might be able to then take in some of your ideas that you posted into mind. For now, we just don't have the time/manpower to totally redefine our map and such.

I know we are having problems with the DLL, and I came up with a solution to minimize the countries and still keep this going correctly. We have argued and whatever over what should and should not be in the game...but this is perfect. It represents 48 civs (of which there IS a working DLL). Now...it breaks up Europe a little bit, but with defensive pacts - it works just the same as it would in real life while giving sovereignty to the "custom" players in the world. There isn't a better solution proposed yet AND this allows us to get moving and get everything working with MINIMAL modding needed since there already exists a 48 civ DLL. See the list below. I just called them the names I called them...you can think of whatever different if you'd like. The world's small islands can be split up into whoever really has control over them, etc. (Picture of the map to come soon...)

48 total:
6 West
1 Latin American
10 Europe
1 Nato
1 EU
3 N Africa
3 African Unions (East, West, central)
1 African Union (AU)
6 Middle East
3 SW Asia
3 Central Asia
2 SE Asia
4 East Asia
1 Pacific realm
1 Minor States
1 Neutral States
1 Failed States

West: 6
Usa: 1 - panama - guatemala - qatar
Mexico
brazil
argentina
peru
chile

Latin america states: 1
venezuela
ecuador
bolivia
cuba
nicaragua
honduras
dominican republic

europe: 10
UK - trinidad and tobago - barbados - jamaica - belize
spain
france
germany
poland
italy
sweden
turkey
ukraine
belarus

NATO: 1
norway
iceland
canada
denmark
estonia
latvia
lithuania

european union: 1
belgium
netherlands
ireland
portugal
greece
bulgaria
romania
czech rep.
austria
hungary
slovakia
romania
slovenia
finland

N Africa: 3
libya
egypt
morocco

Africa East/Central/West Unions: 3 (Total)
West: 1
Mauritania
Liberia
Cameroon
Rep.of Congo

Central: 1
Mali
Niger
Zambia
Nigeria
algeria

East: 1
Tanzania
Mozambique
uganda
Ethiopia
Angola

African Union: 1
South Africa
Botswana
Nambia
Senegal
Ghana
Gabon

Middle East: 6
saudi arabia - yemen
jordan
syria
israel
iran
lebanon

central asia: 3
russia
CACO: tajikistan - kazakhstan - Kyrgyzstan -
Turkmenistan - uzbekistan
Mongolia

West/South Asia: 3
pakistan
India
bangladesh

SouthEast Asia: 2
China
ASEAN: 1
vietnam
thailand
cambodia
laos
burma (myanmar)
laos
philippines
indonesia
malaysia
singapore

East Asia: 4
N Korea
S Korea
Japan
Taiwan

Pacific realm: 1
australia - new zealand

minor states: 1
Paraguay
Uruguay
Guyana
Suriname
French Guiana
montenegro
croatia
serbia/bosnia
albania
macedonia
moldovoa
cyprus
kuwait
oman
sri lanka

neutral states: 1
switzerland
costa rica
United arab emirates
armenia

Failed States: 1
sudan
somalia
zimbabwe
Chad
Central African Republic
Kenya
Haiti
Ivory coast
guinea
madagascar
Iraq (US involvment)
afghanistan (US involment)
colombia

As we have a guaranteed working dll for 50 civs and the existing agreed list is 53, if it does transpire that 53 must make 50 then I would imagine it'd make more sense to merge 3 civs into ones already represented in the game. I do not agree with starting to make massive changes such as splitting the EU up, which is just going to require more work and rip apart work that has already been done.

We could argue about Europe solutions, ASEAN solutions etc all day, but since we already have I think it's most sensible to stick to what we have as far as is possible.

I don't think it should be too difficult to remove 3 civs without goiing back to the drawing board, but i DO agree that sooner rather than later if there IS A PROBLEM with the dll that we make the cut and move on.

Indeed it is the problem with the dll that Kai was aasking for many moons ago when he wanted to be doing city placements etc. This is not a big issue, so if we only have 50 then can we go with 50?


Now I have no idea about dlls, how to make one, how to source one etc, but i can see this is holding things up.


I recommend that unless we have a working 53 civ dll within 1 WEEK (10th August 2009) that we move to cut 3 civs.


This is not alot and would move us on with minimum disruption I'm sure.

Niknaks and team, what do you think?

I think if you map out the map on EXACTLY what I did...it works perfectly. We have a perfectly functioning 48 civ DLL and that list I provided works perfectly within the framework of the mod.

The thing is:

We HAVE a perfectly functioning - bug free 48 civ DLL. Breaking it down as I have implements the BEST gameplay for the mod. The EU is mainly intact (especially when you take into account relations, defensive pacts, etc.). The West is broken down correctly. ASEAN is taken into account and it represents the present day SE Asia. This also maintains the sovereignty of some of the "big players" in Europe. They may be in the EU, but they have vastly different foreign policies...this allows us to play them as we like AND keeps the mod running well. Africa is broken down well...which will keep it underpowered. The map allows us to play the game as the world works, and it is the FASTEST WAY TO GET THE MOD UP AND RUNNING. We have a 100% bug free 48-civ DLL. The goal is to get the mod up and running. Do that and more and more and more help will come on. The mod will get done MUCH FASTER by simply adopting this. It is 48 civs...breaks down perfectly, and the map will be great. I know that DVS was hell bent on some things - but he was also hell bent on incorporating so many things that Civ simply CANNOT do. We have to break away from him and what the plan was.

The plan from here needs to be this:

Implement this map. The 48 civ DLL works perfectly and that map will play well, and fair. Next...develop the relations between nations, etc. Finish the unit numbers and placement and city numbers, etc. Then the map should be good for testing since we have a working tech tree and civics.

Implement this map and lets get this thing officially going. No more sitting and waiting.

I actually like that map. we should try and get a 55civ DLL done but not untill after version 1 is complete.

However adding France spain and germany now means rethinking and XML'ing the new UB's and UU's. but that would be quicker than the alternative.

Thanks for the support.

Using the map I did (trust me, a LOT of thought went into it) will be better for us both long term and short term.

There is already a functioning 48 civ DLL with zero bugs for BTS. We can easily compile that with Revolutions, etc. That is a lot less work than and takes less knowledge than actually creating a new DLL and testing it, etc.

The above map is INCREDIBLY balanced and will work best for us. Study it, everyone for a bit, and you'll come to the agreement that it works well. It is best for balance and for everything else. Having a separate France, Spain, Germany, etc. makes a LOT more sense than our old map that DVS was crazily pushing along AND it will be easier for us to create and get the mod up and running so we can attract more and more help to do some of the more complicated things we want to do.

i think the idea of the massive EU put alot of people off the mod, i am also glad to see it split up. i know RevDCM includes the 50civ DLL, but the current version is quite buggy. does anyone have any ideas for the UB's of France, Spain, Germany, Poland, Finland?

I think we should wait the one week if there isn't a bug free dll for the 53 civs by then we can go with the 48 one just to conserve time

Civ Editor. It isn't going to happen. It hasn't happened in a year. Just move on (not that you've been here long, but others have) and lets go with the 48 civ DLL. Plus, it is totally agreed that one MASSIVE bloc of the EU put off many people from the mod. Splitting it up the way I have it labeled will be better for balance. Go back and read thru the civ list I put up, and check the map. It balances perfectly and will help us get going now.

Yeah I guess it'll work but if the 53 version comes out with no bugs we should switch to that

Edit: We'll just wait a week and if it doesn't work use the bug free version so it doesn't hold us up much

Ok, lets not get too hasty. I think the easiest solution (as Adhesive86) said if the 53 won't work is just to knock off three tiny civs that really aren't as important as some of the larger ones. My vote goes to knocking off Belarus, Bangladesh, and Georgia. All 3 of these are really tiny civs that really won't impact the game that much, and aren't really as important in world politics as are most of the others.

The game, honestly, is wayyyyyyyyyy too unbalanced. The only reason its like that is because DVS was pushing for a complete EU and a free Canada.

Placing Canada in NATO, and keeping the EU as a civ but with the smaller Europe civs is much better for balance. The "money players" - UK, France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy allow the game to be more balanced if they are freed up.

This is anything but a hasty decision. This keep gameplay actually balanced and will make the mod much more playable. Otherwise - the mod will simply become a USA vs. EU vs. China vs. Russia. Breaking up the EU a bit - while leaving the alliances, allows more game play stability. ASEAN will be a better force to fight off China when it attacks in the game and will keep China from becoming a dominating superpower with little effort. NATO is much better represented.

No doubt about it...we rushed into the map because DVS was crazily pushing us along. I went back and studied it all, and took everything into account. Study the map I made, etc. There is not doubt it will play better and provide better balance.

Civ List below
Map here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8329106&postcount=82

That is a great map but we should try for the 53 civ one first and then decide on a 48 one and not do it hastily but efficiently

You are missing the point. The point is the above post that I made.

Its not that unbalanced without changing it to 48 civs

I have no issue with whether Mattygerst's map is good or not. I'm sure he put alot of effort into it.

However, I'm a little concerned that what was initially framed as a solution to not having a big enough dll to fit 53 civs is instead to make a new map with new civs.

Our map is not a problem. We have argued and debated and better debated about this. Naturally some people don't like it, some people won't like it either if it is changed. What i do know is that plans have been made and work has been done based on the solution we came to months ago. By all means let's make changes in order to stop things being held up, but let's not rip things up just because a couple of people didn't like the map, which was painstakingly decided upon.

Removing 3 or even 5 countries is not difficult. Mattygerst has managed to illustrate this himself by managing to reduce by 5 and still find time to make a load of new civs, which is great but not needed. If we change the map everytime someone comes up with a great new one we will never get this finished.

Let's focus on what everyone wants: Getting this mod completed as quick, simply and effectively as possible- remove 3 civs if after a small stay of execution a 53civ solution is not possible.

Otherwise I may as well go and draw my own map up too a few weeks after everyone has begun work on this one.

I agree go for the 53 civs if that doesn't work go with the 48 civs. Either way its good right?

Incidentally, on the 48-civ map, Norway is labelled as Finland, which I'm sure they'll all thank you for :)

Yeah, my bad. I added them there instead of Norway. Norway, obviously will be part of NATO, while Finland would be part of the EU.

I think we can just use the 48 civ map and maybe add more civs after version 1 comes out

The game, honestly, is wayyyyyyyyyy too unbalanced. The only reason its like that is because DVS was pushing for a complete EU and a free Canada.

Placing Canada in NATO, and keeping the EU as a civ but with the smaller Europe civs is much better for balance. The "money players" - UK, France, Germany, Poland, Spain, Italy allow the game to be more balanced if they are freed up.

This is anything but a hasty decision. This keep gameplay actually balanced and will make the mod much more playable. Otherwise - the mod will simply become a USA vs. EU vs. China vs. Russia. Breaking up the EU a bit - while leaving the alliances, allows more game play stability. ASEAN will be a better force to fight off China when it attacks in the game and will keep China from becoming a dominating superpower with little effort. NATO is much better represented.

No doubt about it...we rushed into the map because DVS was crazily pushing us along. I went back and studied it all, and took everything into account. Study the map I made, etc. There is not doubt it will play better and provide better balance.

Civ List below
Map here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8329106&postcount=82

I'd say, at this point in the process, we really don't whats unbalanced or not. Before we make the unbalanced decision, first lets see if the 53 dll works. If not, lets take the three tiny civs i mentioned out of the picture and try to get this mod into beta. Once we're actually testing it, then we can decide if its unbalanced or not. Because, besides the size of the countries, you have to factor in size of armies, UU's, UB's, resources, relations, wars, etc. There are a lot of factors to factor in before we decide if its unbalanced. I have no doubt that you put a lot of effort into the new map, but right now I think its just too big of a change, especially since we're really nearing the beta. I think the best thing to do is get this into beta, and leave these larger changes until after we've tested and identified the problems with the current version.

In principle, I completely agree with the new list. Any other objections? If not, motion passed. Good, now who wants to change the civs XML to fit all of this in? Once that's done, we'll start testing it.

In principle, I completely agree with the new list. Any other objections? If not, motion passed. Good, now who wants to change the civs XML to fit all of this in? Once that's done, we'll start testing it.

So we're changing all the civs again? After a year on the project and much of the work that people have done now needs to be redone because Mattygerst doesn't like the 'balance'. I've read and re read these posts and what was written on the diplo thread i set up and can only come to the conclusion that they convey a real arrogance and little faith in or regard for other people's work.

There is absolutely no good reason to be ripping this map up at this stage to save civ space whilst also creating a load of new civs. We could all do new maps. To have argued and better argued about it and now to be changing it within 24 hours after at most 3 people including the new author are in favour seems pretty ridiculous, but hey.

To tackle some of the points raised in favour of the new map, which I had rather hoped to have avoided doing:

1) Canada is the 2nd biggest country in the world and a G7 economy. It is far from unreasonable to expect it will feature independently whether the civ count is 48-53.

2) The EU:

This has been argued over and over and there are arguments on both sides, but it is not clearly the best thing to split up the EU mainland.

a) With the exception of the UK and some of the new accession states (e.g. Poland) most of Europe is incredibly ideologically aligned with regard to foreign policy. Granted, with 27 states the EU find it hard to agree much re defence, but to say they have very different distinct policies it not true, most are pretty kantian. The EU has a European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), with the security pillar being in place since 1992 (from memory) and security missions enacted.

b) The EU is a massive and growing power, a counter balance to the US and China. To remove it and cut it up will emasculate it and is not representative of how EU trade (internal and external) and the EU economy functions.

3) ASEAN: ASEAN is much less integrated than the EU, but Mattygerst wants to represent this bloc, but not the EU? Doesn't make sense.

4) EU vs US vs China vs Russia: Why is this a problem? This is quite representative is it not? Having read Kai's city list i would not discount India, Brazil or Japan. I'd even fancied myself with Britain after a swift bit of recolonising. However I really agree with Joecoolyo that there are many factors that are to be taken into account before deciding on 'balance', if we are to decide that balance is more important than realism anyway which seems at odds with the notion of a 2009 mod.

Ultimately I'm not saying Matty has a bad map, although I don't agree it's quite as great as he's saying. I agree that the important thing is to get a release ASAP and I can't see how changing the map at this stage helps. I won't say anymore on the subject though, my opinion has been made clear.

I wanted to be able to compare the two properly so i am making the civ list for Matty's Map. after thinking about it a bit i do prefer Genghis's Civ list (but i personally would like a split up europe so i could play say germany and try and conquer the world (but obviously make it so the AI never do this)) We could always keep the XML for all the current civs and then once we have Finished Matty's Map (Most the Civs can just use the leaders/buildings/units from the civs they are made up from. i think once the map is complete and playable then we should focus on making a 60civ DLL (60 so there is room for some revolutions and a map with a plit up EU (could easily have 2)

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

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

Saudi Arabia
Israel
Palestine
Syria
Iran
Pakistan
Bangladesh
India

Kazakhstan
Mongolia
China
Taiwan
North Korea
South Korea
Japan

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

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

Neutral States (Switzerland, Turkmenistan and Costa Rica)

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

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

1. European Union (East Balkans, Portugal, Ireland, Finland, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria)
2. United Kingdom (Jamaica, Belize, Bahamas, Trinidad, Falklands?)
3. France
4. Germany
5. Poland
6. Spain
7. Italy
8. NATO (Norway, Canada, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Denmark, Iceland)
9. Russia
10. Belarus
11. Ukraine
12. Turkey

13. Morocco
14. Egypt
15. West African States (Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Senegal, and Togo.)
16. Central African States (Cameroon, São Tomé, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Tunisia, 17. Nigeria, Ghana, Liberia and Sierra Leone)
18. South African States (Botswana and Namibia and South Africa)
19. East African States (Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi, Ethiopia)

I Have to go, i will finish later (Or someone else can)

In principle, I completely agree with the new list. Any other objections? If not, motion passed. Good, now who wants to change the civs XML to fit all of this in? Once that's done, we'll start testing it.

Well, the new list looks ok, we can't just change everything. If we switch over to this that means all of Genghis Kai's map work is lost, that means all of the UB's and UU's have to be redone, that mean we're going to have to fix all of the world relations that Adhesive started to work on. A whole years worth of work will be lost without even testing the old map.

As I've said before (and as Adhesive said above) lets stick with the old map for now, get it into beta and test out how it goes. If we find the EU is too powerful, or that we should reunite ASEAN, then we can change that later (that's the entire point of beta, to make sure everything works and is balanced). For now, too much work would be lost to just switch over on impulse to a new map.

Mattygerst, I'm not saying your map is bad... its a good map. Just this far into the process its too big of a overhaul, especially since we haven't even started testing.

I completely agree with Joecoolyo and Adhesive86. Mattygerst your map is great too and maybe it can be used sometimes in the future. But I really don't understand why (after a very long and extensive discussion, a poll and much work for the existing map) we should now change everything. Adhesive86 has brought up a couple of great arguments for the original map. Certainly there are also good argument for your new map, no doubt! But for the moment I think it would be much better to stick to the status quo. Otherwise we could start again to discuss, why and why not some civs (especially the EU) should or should not be implemented, but I think at this point that would be quite useless, because we already have had this discussion at length.

We should just go with the new map so we can move this along faster we need to get version 1 out before 2010

Civ, you've got the right idea. This idea is good, and as far as I'm concerned, it's close enough to our old list to be workable. There are many faults with the old list that are solved with this, but by no means am I saying it's perfect. I'm saying it's good enough, and let's plough on.

I've not written anything in here for quite a time since I didn't have any time to participate. But I've always been following the discussion on here (at times when there's been one).
But once I read this I have to say a word or two: I am aghast at these new plans. I completely agree with adhesive, joecoolyo and lord wolf. We have discussed this list over and over for months, balanced with all our combined knowledge. It turned out to be the best way to represent a realistic world. A lot of people spent a lot of effort doing this. And there is absolutely no reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater and completely redo the list.
Cutting three civs is the right way to go. Anything else means a lot of accomplished work (XML, UBs, UUs, Leaders, Relations...) is thrown away and a lot of new work needs to be done. This will further delay the release without any benefit.

Here's my quick plan to cut civs, discussed in MAP vote thread. I don't think this 'unbalances beyond belief':

1) Belarus ----> Russia
2) Sudan -----> Failed States
3) Angola (DR Congo)-----> Minor States OR Mongolia -----> Minor States

This isn't difficult, solves our problem and avoids 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater', which is otherwise EXACTLY what is happening. There is no way anyone can seriously argue that the addition of 2 cities in Belarus to Russia is going to unbalance the game or that Sudan or Angola are going to make much difference in failed and minor states either to the game or makeup of Africa. (The aim in Africa was to break it up, and we're still left with 11 civs there so it's still fractured)

Problem solved, merge GEM with revolutions civ dll (50 civ), which has already been done and shown to work twice by GEM modders...

Lets just do something. If the majority likes the new map go with the the new map. If not don't. Lets just decide on something instead of arguing for days

Lets just do something. If the majority likes the new map go with the the new map. If not don't. Lets just decide on something instead of arguing for days

That's why i've put it to a vote. See here... http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=330516

Well, arguing is part of the decision process. It doesn't work otherwise. Of course it's delaying. And that is exactly the reason why this box should not have been re-opened in the first place. :shake:

What I'm saying is take a vote like adhesive is doing and which ever one wins go with that instead of arguing for days on what to do

Why the hell did you cut out Palestine...?????

Okay, now that I've figured out once and for all how to incorporate everything into the map correctly and have the map work in terms of cities assigned to the correct civ, removing all unnecessary units, buildings, and that kind of stuff, we will get to the Final Civ List. A couple of these can be negotiated in and out, but some are staying because its entrenched into the map.

Civ List - Staying 100%:

West: 7
USA
Canada
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Peru
Chile

Bolivarian Alliance: 1
Venezuela
Ecuador
Bolivia
Cuba
Honduras
Dominican Republic

Europe: 10
United Kingdom
Spain
France
Germany
Poland
Italy
Sweden
Turkey
Ukraine
Switzerland

NATO: 1
Norway
Iceland
Denmark
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania

European Union: 1
Belgium
Netherlands
Ireland
Portugal
Greece
Bulgaria
Romania
Czech Rep.
Austria
Hungary
Finland

Mediterranean Union: 1
Croatia
Albania
Serbia

N Africa: 4
Libya
Egypt
Morocco
Algeria

Africa East/Central/West/AU Alliances: 4

West: 1
Sierra Leone
Liberia
Cameroon
Togo
Nigeria

Central: 1
Mali
Niger
Zambia
Angola

East: 1
Tanzania
Mozambique
Ethiopia
Namibia

African Union: 1
South Africa
Tunisia
Senegal
Ghana

Middle East: 4
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Israel
Iran

Central Asia: 2
Russia & Belarus
CACO: - Tajikistan - Kazakhstan - Kyrgyzstan - Turkmenistan - Uzbekistan

West/South Asia: 2
Pakistan
India

SouthEast Asia: 4
China
Thailand
Indonesia
ASEAN- Vietnam -Philippines - Malaysia -Singapore

East Asia: 3
N Korea
S Korea
Japan

Australia/Oceania: 1
Australia & New Zealand

Minor States: 1
Paraguay
Uruguay
Guyana
Suriname
Cyprus
Kuwait
Oman
Costa Rica
Armenia
Georgia

Failed States: 1
African failed states
Madagascar
Iraq (US involvment)
Afghanistan (US involment)

That list of 100% in the mod totals: 46 (failed states does not equal a civ - and I'm 100% sure of this after learning how to create the map). Those countries, 100%, will be represented in the mod. That leaves us 4 more civs to either add, or break up from conglomerates above. The rest I will leave up to a short debate for those who care. Here are the possibilities/suggestions:

Add 4 civs:
Basically, in list form:
- Break down the EU more (see EU list above)
- Break down the Mediterranean Union
- Break down ASEAN more
- Separate Australia/New Zealand
- Separate Russia & Belarus (keeping in mind no Vassal States will be used in the mod to avoid major countries vassalizing the world on Turn #1 as in GEM 1940).
- Add in:
Colombia
Palestine
Jordan
Lebanon
Georgia
Armenia
or one of the other Minor States
-Keep 4 civ slots open and play with Revolutions on and chance a civ breaking up under revolution and spawing new civs.
-Your thoughts/ideas

This needs to be done by Friday this week. Whatever we do, we have room for 4 more civilizations.

Okay, now that I've figured out once and for all how to incorporate everything into the map correctly and have the map work in terms of cities assigned to the correct civ, removing all unnecessary units, buildings, and that kind of stuff, we will get to the Final Civ List. A couple of these can be negotiated in and out, but some are staying because its entrenched into the map.

Civ List - Staying 100%:

West: 7
USA
Canada
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Peru
Chile

Bolivarian Alliance: 1
Venezuela
Ecuador
Bolivia
Cuba
Honduras
Dominican Republic

Europe: 10
United Kingdom
Spain
France
Germany
Poland
Italy
Sweden
Turkey
Ukraine
Switzerland

NATO: 1
Norway
Iceland
Denmark
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania

European Union: 1
Belgium
Netherlands
Ireland
Portugal
Greece
Bulgaria
Romania
Czech Rep.
Austria
Hungary
Finland

Mediterranean Union: 1
Croatia
Albania
Serbia

N Africa: 4
Libya
Egypt
Morocco
Algeria

Africa East/Central/West/AU Alliances: 4

West: 1
Sierra Leone
Liberia
Cameroon
Togo
Nigeria

Central: 1
Mali
Niger
Zambia
Angola

East: 1
Tanzania
Mozambique
Ethiopia
Namibia

African Union: 1
South Africa
Tunisia
Senegal
Ghana

Middle East: 4
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Israel
Iran

Central Asia: 2
Russia & Belarus
CACO: - Tajikistan - Kazakhstan - Kyrgyzstan - Turkmenistan - Uzbekistan

West/South Asia: 2
Pakistan
India

SouthEast Asia: 4
China
Thailand
Indonesia
ASEAN- Vietnam -Philippines - Malaysia -Singapore

East Asia: 3
N Korea
S Korea
Japan

Australia/Oceania: 1
Australia & New Zealand

Minor States: 1
Paraguay
Uruguay
Guyana
Suriname
Cyprus
Kuwait
Oman
Costa Rica
Armenia
Georgia

Failed States: 1
African failed states
Madagascar
Iraq (US involvment)
Afghanistan (US involment)

That list of 100% in the mod totals: 46 (failed states does not equal a civ - and I'm 100% sure of this after learning how to create the map). Those countries, 100%, will be represented in the mod. That leaves us 4 more civs to either add, or break up from conglomerates above. The rest I will leave up to a short debate for those who care. Here are the possibilities/suggestions:

Add 4 civs:
Basically, in list form:
- Break down the EU more (see EU list above)
- Break down the Mediterranean Union
- Break down ASEAN more
- Separate Australia/New Zealand
- Separate Russia & Belarus (keeping in mind no Vassal States will be used in the mod to avoid major countries vassalizing the world on Turn #1 as in GEM 1940).
- Add in:
Colombia
Palestine
Jordan
Lebanon
Georgia
Armenia
or one of the other Minor States
-Keep 4 civ slots open and play with Revolutions on and chance a civ breaking up under revolution and spawing new civs.
-Your thoughts/ideas

This needs to be done by Friday this week. Whatever we do, we have room for 4 more civilizations.

1)

Definitely:
- Add Colombia

- Add Palestine

Should:

- Add Georgia

- Add New Zealand

5th choice would be a Belarus (Russia defence pact)

Also,

2) - Change 'Mediterranean Union' to 'Balkan Union'. This is just a better, more accurate name.


3) - Not happy with South Africa (a nuclear power) in same civ as a north african country, but unless someone agrees i'll leave this as i know you're trying to fragment Africa. Nevertheless South Africa is a large regional power. To change it i would:

- Merge Tunisia into Algeria

- Senegal = Minor

- Ghana = Minor or another union

- South Africa Independent, incorporating some other southern states e.g. Mozambique.

Ps also the NATO civ has no teeth whatsoever, so I wonder if there's any point in it? I think they should be split along Scandinavian (Iceland, Norway, Denmark) and Baltic (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia) lines. If no extra civ slots then put the Baltic in the EU, and Scandinavian independent. Or create 5 civ slots by just putting them all in the EU. (yes I know Iceland and Norway are not yet in the EU, but they are in EFTA and are as much EU as Belarus is Russia etc).

I don't see a problem with a Scandinavian Alliance civ (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Greenland).

I don't see a problem with a Scandinavian Alliance civ (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Greenland).

Nordic Alliance would fit much better, because Finnish people don't usually want to be considered as part of Scandinavia. And it's not geographically correct either.

Nordic then. I'm never clear on other people's names for themselves.

Some quick reflections along with a couple thought:

Adhesive:
We do have 4 civ slots, but we really are pressed for room, obviously.
Mediterranean Union was used over Balkan Union for the simple fact that it is a name of a union that actually exists that I read about regarding those states. But, doesn't matter to me to change it.

You mention we 'should' add Georgia. Well, Tbilisi (capital of Georgia), and Baku (capital of Azerbaijan) are both currently "Minor Nations" and play an important role of separating Russia from Turkey thru the Caucasus Mountains. We could add those 2 countries as a "Caucasus Union". And give them good relations with the USA (and probably EU).

Total Civ count: 46+1 = 47.

Definitely add: Colombia & Palestine: Total Civ Count: 47+2 = 49.

Okay, now we get one more Civ. Regarding NATO. I FULLY agree with you that NATO has zero power, whatsoever. The only thing that was having me leave it as is, was giving them the standard defensive pact with EU and USA. That would inhibit countries with attack them. I also know that Norway wants no part of it as I've read. I also didn't want to really make an all-powerful EU for gameplay reasons, but those states are not exactly going to break the bank. Do we leave Greenland as a Minor State? But, we can bite the bullet, and add all of NATO to the EU.

Total Civs: 49-1 = 48

Next was South Africa. We simply split up South Africa from the rest of the Africa. We would also move Tunisia from that union and merge with Algeria. Ghana becomes a failed state. Senegal merges with the Central African Alliance.

Total Civs: 48 (no change, simply shuffling)

List Form:
Add: Caucasus Union (2 cities, good relations with USA) = 1 Civ
Add: Colombia & Palestine = 2 Civs
Remove: NATO & combine with EU
Separate: South Africa from AU to make independent
Combine: Tunisia & Algeria, and Senegal to CAA
Failed: Ghana

Unless my counting is way off, this leaves us with 48 civs and room for 2 more slots. Belarus is such a garbage country, its almost better just leaving them in Russia full time. They're like their babysitter anyway.

Other suggestions/ideas welcome. Adding 2 more civs should not be hard. I'm a bit skeptical to separate New Zealand & Australia simply because New Zealand is not exactly a playable country with world impact, but also is more in union with Australia than being a Minor State at war with everyone. We could use the final 2 civ slots to break down Africa even more, to really fracture it. But, if anything, lets try to stay on track. We've got the bulk of this done and I'm inclined to agree with Adhesive's ideas & plan on incorporating them as of right now as I've written above.

***I think, honestly, we should leave these 2 slots OPEN. So that we can use it for balancing in the future if we need to break up a civ for balancing***

Ideas for the other 2 civ slots:
-Remove 2 of the EU states and make them independent civs
-Break up ASEAN by making Malaysia & Philippies fully independent and moving Singapore either into alliance with someone, or making Singapore a Minor State as well as Vietnam.
-Fracture Africa more

Non-Official List:
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 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

Caucasus Union: 1
Georgia
Azerbaijan

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
Palestine -

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

Ghana by no means is a failed state!!! In fact it is as far away from a failed state as you can get these days and an emerging local power. It is the most promising democracy in Western Africa.

Ghana by no means is a failed state!!! In fact it is as far away from a failed state as you can get these days and an emerging local power. It is the most promising democracy in Western Africa.

Ok cool I didn't know that off hand. Make it minor then, or it's own civ. (It isn't so necessary to leave 2 empty civ slots as long as we are clear on which civs are the first to be removed if changes are required and i think we are. Unless it is alot easier for Matty from a modding perspective)

Ps Please if possible no Mediterranean Union. The Mediterranean Union represents ALL countries in the mediterranean including African countries, France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Palestine etc. The countries in the in game union are all Balkan, so this would be more accurately called 'Balkan Union'.

Ghana by no means is a failed state!!!

You're right. I read this on wikipedia:

"According to the 2009 Failed States Index, Ghana is ranked the 53rd least failed state in the world and the least failed state in Africa"

But when I read it...I missed the "53rd least" and read it as 53rd ranked failed state.

in game union are all Balkan

Don't worry, already been changed.

But, thoughts on the other 2 states?

But, thoughts on the other 2 states?

Sorry, i don't understand? Edit: Sorry i guess you mean the 'empty slots'. Obviously my opinion has been made so i'll try and shut up and wait for anyone elses!

First, I'd like to mention this is my first time visiting here with an account and therefore my first post. (I know it says I registered November '08, It's a long story, better to leave out)

Anyways, I'd like to congratulate on finally splitting up the EU somewhat, Now I'll be able to play... as POLAND (Along with Canada)! Awesomesauce.

However, I do think having Switzerland as it's own civ is rather pointless in my opinion (Apologies to all Swiss out there). It's so small, it's going to be one city civ (If that's wrong, then, please, do show a map). Also, as not a member of EU (and the diplomatics of IV), Germany, Italy, and France could look forward to and conquer it 5 turns Max with some nice tanks.

I believe Switzerland should become a minor state, and I have some new countries (Also, since their is only 48 out of 50, you could do one or two of these and leave Switzerland alone).

My first is to separate Vietnam from ASEAN. My reasoning's for this include that it has, for relative for it's size, an extremely organized military that closely resembles the Pepole's Republic (Even being called Vietnam Pepole's Army). Due to this, it has a more efficient military compared to it's neighbors, and due to the unstably of the area, could lead to back stabbing between the nations. and Vietnam could be a serious contender to rule a good chunk of Southeast Asia (Until China invades the area, that is.) Now, your probably asking yourself "Well, It's also a small country, probably 3 starting cities at the most", but think to yourself, "Can Switzerland /really/ hold off Germany, Italy, or France If a wars does happen?"

Leaderhead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_Tan_Dung (I think he should be easy to make. Just take the body of Teddy, turn his tie blue and his suit jacket navy blue, make a good head and some custom animations and your done)!

UU and UB: I'll only look into these if you are st least looking to go use Vietnam (Same goes to all civs mentioned here)

Before I tell my next idea, can I ask Mongolia's fate? I thought it was going to be playable, but now I can't find it anywhere in your list, not even minor or failed). Anyways, I bet you can tell that the Khan's homeland is my next idea, for that reason. This is almost purely for Genghis Kai, as a "We're sorry we're not using your map which you worked hard on anymore. Here's a small token of our appreciation for giving up your time", but I can think of some good reasons to make it playable (If already not). If it's a minor, it's going to get killed by China or Russia, and that could potentially cause a WW3 very early between the two Red-colored superpowers. If it is it's own country, this could forestall a war (As AI isn't as likely to attack a civ then a minor state), possibly changing what countries start it. It does have a good army, but it's not as strong as Genghis Khan's armies. Finally, I'd love to hear Mongol Internationale in the game, It's such a beautiful song :goodjob:. (Note: Both Khan's themes IS Mongol Internationale in the actual Civ 4, so if your cheap, you could just use the late version of it).

Leaderhead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjaagiin_Bayar (Your going to have to google his image, it's not there).

Finally, I also think Ghana should be a civ. I think the reasons why are already stated. Plus, Africa should have more than 5 civs that are actual countries and not allainces.

Leaderhead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Atta_Mills

That's all I got for now, and I understand if your too far to edit Swissie and that if you keep on using every one's ideas, nothing will get done.

I'd also like to help mod, but my skill is literarly none, so I won't.

Omega124: I'm not ignoring your post. So please don't feel the beginning of this post has anything to do with ignoring you. I simply have finished the map with all cities, etc., and wanted to post some statistics so we could have further thoughts/changes before I officially start to implement flags/leaderheads.

Current Represented Civilizations with # of Cities:
West:
USA: 48
Canada: 25
Mexico: 11
Brazil: 14
Argentina: 6
Peru: 5
Chile: 5
Colombia: 3

Bolivarian Alliance: 10

Europe (Includes overseas collectivities):
UK: 14
Spain: 5
France: 12
Germany: 6
Poland: 4
Italy: 6
Sweden: 4
Turkey: 6
Ukraine: 5
Switzerland: 1

European Union: 32

Balkan Union: 3

North Africa:
Libya: 2
Egypt: 4
Morocco: 4
Algeria (+Tunisia): 5

West African Alliance: 9

Central African Alliance: 10

East African Alliance: 12

South Africa:
South Africa: 4

Middle East:
Saudi Arabia: 5
Israel: 2
Palestine: 2
Syria: 2
Iran: 7

Central Asia:
Russia (+Belarus - 2 cities): 42
CACO: 9
Caucasus Union: 3

South West Asia:
Pakistan: 5
India: 18

SE Asia:
China: 42
Thailand: 3
Indonesia: 13

ASEAN:
ASEAN: 11

East Asia:
North Korea: 2
South Korea: 3
Japan: 9

Australia:
Australia (+New Zealand 4 cities): 26 (overwhelming majority are 1 tile islands)

Minor States: 43

Failed States: 30 (21 failed cities in Africa)

More or less, the game seems well balanced. The superpowers are the superpowers, the moderate nations are moderate, and the weaker are the weaker.

We have 2 open civs, but after reviewing the map, also some possible suggestions.

Possible points of conflict:

#1 Thailand:
Only 3 cities, with India & Minor States to the West, China to the NE, and Minor to the East, with ASEAN & Indonesia to the South. We can either A) leave it be, or B ) combine Thailand with ASEAN, which will increase ASEAN's size from 11 to 14 cities. This will then give ASEAN 2 'land bases' in Vietnam & Thailand - which can help repel a Chinese/Indian invasion. I think it will work either way, but it seems that making Thailand part of ASEAN will enable it to better defend itself and also give the possibility to attack the Minor Nations to spread ASEAN into Cambodia/Laos, which seems fairly realistic.

#2 Switzerland:
Thoughts in next post (edited)

#3 Africa:
EDIT: Africa is fairly broken, but could stand to be broken even more. If any of the African civs gets its act together...there are TONS of failed states (all failed correctly via 2009 Failed State Index) that can be conquered to bring a potential long-term powerful African civ. Adding 1 more fractured part would ensure this takes longer.


As far as Australia & New Zealand. Australia has 22 cities, but many of them are 1 tile islands. New Zealand has 4 cities. But, I still think its best to combine these 2 civs because New Zealand is not a world player, but is also not "Minor" enough to risk a war with Australia.

What do you guys suggest?

We have 2 open civ slots. The 1-city Switzerland civ. 3 city Thailand civ. I suggest we remove at least 1 of those. That would take us to 47 civs, with the possibility of adding 3 more.

Possibilities to add from those 3:
#1 - Belarus (2 cities) as a playable civ with very good relations to Russia including defensive pact.
#2 - Separate the EU somewhat, separate the Philippenes from ASEAN while adding Thailand
#3 - Add civs from the list of Minor Nations, including: Mongolia (approx. 3-4 cities), New Zealand (4 cities), adding another African Alliance civ

Other ideas?...

After more intensive review of the map:

Here are some more notes.

Belarus, almost positively, needs to be added as a civ. Mostly to keep Russia off of Poland's eastern border. So, that takes care of 1 of the 2 open civs.

Switzerland almost needs to stay, as well. Although only 1 city...it is located in a major defensive position in Europe. It separates the heart France and Germany, and is at a natural land block (pretty much) keeping Germany from Italy. Although only 1 city (and I doubt anyone ever plays using Switzerland), they almost need to be used. It should definitely NOT be a minor civ. If anything...although this is vastly stretching it...it could be put into the EU for military reasons...but that is definitely not correct. But, its either a standalone 1 city civ, or part of the EU. What do you all think?

Thailand is not in entirely bad shape with only 3 cities. They have good, workable land, and some space to work with. Although, it would not be terribly bad to add them to ASEAN, still.

Keeping every civ as was and including Belarus gives us 49 civs. Room for one more. Logical choices after looking at the map:

Adding a 2 city civ in Bangladesh for balance reasons and separating India from China a bit, or adding a strategic world civ like Taiwan. And the final idea is to add another African Alliance civ to make sure Africa is truly fractured (see post above).

That is about all that I see potential for, honestly. Any thoughts?

Add Switzerland to the EU, create Belarus, separate Ghana and make Africa even more fractured. Keep Bangladesh with Pakistan as well.

Add Switzerland to the EU, create Belarus, separate Ghana and make Africa even more fractured. Keep Bangladesh with Pakistan as well.

Others thoughts on this?

Also thought on (from my previous post):
Switzerland almost needs to stay, as well. Although only 1 city...it is located in a major defensive position in Europe. It separates the heart France and Germany, and is at a natural land block (pretty much) keeping Germany from Italy. Although only 1 city (and I doubt anyone ever plays using Switzerland), they almost need to be used. It should definitely NOT be a minor civ. If anything...although this is vastly stretching it...it could be put into the EU for military reasons...but that is definitely not correct. But, its either a standalone 1 city civ, or part of the EU. What do you all think?

Just seems bad to add Switzerland to the EU. The fact is...it is too important of a city to just let be conquered by a mainland Europe civ. What are some ideas on this? Is it okay to add the Swiss to the EU?

create Belarus
Thats being done, with no exceptions. It has to be done to separate Russia from Kaliningrad & keep Poland's borders a bit more secure.

separate Ghana and make Africa even more fractured
Others thoughts?

Keep Bangladesh with Pakistan as well.
I don't believe that combining Bangladesh & Pakistan is realistic. After all, the 2 countries' foreign policy towards each other has been said: "The Bangladesh-Pakistan relationship is yet to be at a level that may be called warm."

Notes:
Belarus added = 49 civs

Possibilities:
Switzerland to EU??? would drop it down to 48 civs, again
Make Ghana (1 or 2 cities) independent = adds 1 civ to make it 49 or 50 depending on the Switzerland decision
Make Bangladesh (2 cities) independent = same as above
Add Mongolia (4 cities) = From Omega124
Separate Vietnam (3 cities) from ASEAN = From Omega124
Other ideas?...

You do know both Cambodia and Laos are already in ASEAN, right?

Anyways, I'm half and half for Switzerland in EU. I agree it's too small and a much larger civ should take it's place, but wouldn't it be offensive (To the Swiss) that we move Switzerland into a organization it's not in real life? I support to turn it into a Minor state, personally.

Like I said before, if we are going to break up ASEAN more, it should be Vietnam, not Philippines. I don't feel like listing my reasons again, though.

I think Belarus could work either way, but if it's going to make something like Canada become part of NATO (Seriously, What was that about?), then make it part of Russia. It's only two cities, it won't overpower Russia if you do merge them.

Australia and New Zealand stay merged, Ghana Independent, DON'T ADD MORE ALLIANCES IN AFRICA. If anything, you should aim to bring them down to their knees.

Since I know Swiss=Minor isn't going to happen, make it part of EU. My priorities for the new Civ is in order:

Vietnam
Mongolia
Ghana

With those ideas in place:

It would look like:

#1 - Switzerland to EU (strictly for balance/military reasons) = 47 civs
#2 - Add Belarus = 48 civs
#3 - Cambodia & Laos to ASEAN, making ASEAN: Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Cambodia & Laos
#4 - Vietname out of ASEAN & a playable civ = 49 civs
#5 - One new civ out of: Mongolia (currently Minor), Ghana (currently Minor), Bangladesh (currently Minor), *something we haven't considered*

*Also, regarding Africa: The alliances have 9,10, and 12 cities each. Is that too many? Do we want to break them down by making more of them Minor states along with all the failed states?

Since I know Swiss=Minor isn't going to happen
We can't leave Switzerland as a Minor State because they'll just get rolled over with no consequence to the aggresor nation. If they are going to get rolled on...there needs to be a consequence for it (IE, other nations declaring war). So, its either Switzerland stays as a 1-city, 3 plot civ with defensive pacts. Or it just becomes part of the EU.

With those ideas in place:

It would look like:

#1 - Switzerland to EU (strictly for balance/military reasons) = 47 civs
#2 - Add Belarus = 48 civs
#3 - Cambodia & Laos to ASEAN, making ASEAN: Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Cambodia & Laos
#4 - Vietname out of ASEAN & a playable civ = 49 civs
#5 - One new civ out of: Mongolia (currently Minor), Ghana (currently Minor), Bangladesh (currently Minor), *something we haven't considered*

*Also, regarding Africa: The alliances have 9,10, and 12 cities each. Is that too many? Do we want to break them down by making more of them Minor states along with all the failed states?


We can't leave Switzerland as a Minor State because they'll just get rolled over with no consequence to the aggresor nation. If they are going to get rolled on...there needs to be a consequence for it (IE, other nations declaring war). So, its either Switzerland stays as a 1-city, 3 plot civ with defensive pacts. Or it just becomes part of the EU.

I like all of that. Maybe we should put to vote which one of the four (Or two of five, if you want to put up Vietnam to vote) should become major. After that, we Beta Test (I can help with Offline beta testing), find what's over/underpowered. Fix it, Beta test again, fix what's wrong, beta test again, and hopefully share with world.

Also, Switzerland for EU, obviously to the rest of my post.

EDIT: I think the West and maybe Centeral alliance is okay, but the East should be cut down to at maximum 10 cities.

Civilizations & leaders represented:

West: 8
USA - Barack Obama
Canada - Stephen Harper
Mexico - Felipe Calderon
Brazil - Lula da silva
Argentina - Cristina Kirchner
Peru - Alan Garica
Chile - Michelle Bachelet
Colombia - Alvaro Uribe

Bolivarian Alliance: 1 - Hugo Chavez
Bolivarian Alliance includes (only Hugo Chavez necessary):
Venezuela
Ecuador
Bolivia
Cuba
Honduras
Dominican Republic

Europe: 11
UK - Gordon Brown
Spain - Jose Zapatero
France - Nicolas Sarkozy
Germany - Angela Merkel
Poland - Donald Tusk
Italy - Silvio Berlusconi
Sweden - Fredrik Reinfeldt
Turkey - Recep Erdogan
Ukraine - Yulia Tymoshenko
Switzerland - Hans Merz
Belarus - ?? (haven't researched)

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

Balkan Union: 1 - Stipe Mesic
Balkan Union includes:
Croatia
Albania
Serbia

Caucasus Union: 1 - ??
Caucasus Union includes:
Georgia
Azerbaijan

N Africa: 4
Libya - Muammar al-Gaddafi
Egypt - Hosni Mubarak
Morocco - Abbas el Fassi
Algeria - Abdelaziz Bouteflika

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

South Africa: 1
South Africa - Jacob Zuma


Middle East: 4
Saudi Arabia - King Abdullah
Syria - Bashar al Assad
Israel - Benjamin Netanjahu
Iran - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Palestine - ??

Central Asia: 2
Russia - Vladimir Putin
CACO: - Kassym Tokayev
CACO includes:
Tajikistan
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

South West Asia: 2
Pakistan - Asif Zardari
India - Manmohan Singh

South East Asia: 4
China - Wen Jiabao
Thailand - Bhumibol Adulyadej
Indonesia - Susilo Yudhoyono
ASEAN: 1 - S.R. Nathan
Vietnam
Philippines
Malaysia
Singapore

East Asia: 3
N Korea - Kim Yong Il
S Korea - Lee Myung Bak
Japan - Taro Aso

Australia/Oceania: 1
Australia - Kevin Rudd

We still have not answered these questions:

#1 - Do we leave Switzerland a 1 city, 3 plot playable civ? Or do we include in the EU? Already stated reasons why it will not be made a Minor Civ. Either EU, or playable civ?...

#2 - We still have room for 2 more civs (if we leave Switerland as playable). If we put Switzerland in the EU, we have room for 3 more civs. What 2 (or 3 civs) should we add?

Choices included but not limited to:
Vietnam out of ASEAN and playable (3 cities)
Taiwan playable (2 cities)
Mongolia playable (4 cities - but somewhat useless tiles)
Bangladesh playable (2 cities)
Break up ASEAN fully - add Vietnam, Malaysia, Philippenes as playable civs
Make Ghana a playable civ in Africa
Other ideas not discussed.

*Whatever we decide, we need to add 2 civs. And if we put Switzerland in EU for military balancing reasons (read above posts), then we need to add 3 more from the above list (or other ideas you all have that may be better).

Concerning leaderheads: We need the spoiler'd list for sure as well as any changes made to that list with the civ-change choices above...

I'd really rather have some more input on these decisions above if anyone has any thoughts at all...

My votes:

-Bangladesh
-Taiwan
-Ghana

- Switz in EU

(ps if switz is kept, have you thought of Switzerland in same civ as Iceland, Norway as 'EFTA'? = European Free Trade Agreement, kind of one rung below full membership, limits EU power also and makes Switzerland less pointless. I think this would be better than an independent Switzerland and an over inflated EU)

Seems okay with me.

WIth those suggestions it the additions list would be:

1: Add EFTA: Swiss, Norway, Iceland (seems like a very weak European civ - didn't we take out NATO because of this?)

2: Add Bangladesh

And that would be it. If we just put Switzerland in EU the stretches to include Taiwan.

Are myself and Adhesive the only ones with opinions regarding this post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8412422&postcount=132 ?

Seems okay with me.

WIth those suggestions it the additions list would be:

1: Add EFTA: Swiss, Norway, Iceland (seems like a very weak European civ - didn't we take out NATO because of this?)

2: Add Bangladesh

And that would be it. If we just put Switzerland in EU the stretches to include Taiwan.

Are myself and Adhesive the only ones with opinions regarding this post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=8412422&postcount=132 ?

Hmm.. its not that I don't have an opinion, its just that I pretty much agree with Adhesive's and your propositions. EFTA and Bangladesh seem fine, though I think Taiwan should be independent (as in not part of the EU).

Add the EFTA with switzerland in it
Take Vietnam out of ASEAN
and add ghana
These are my opinions

I vote:

Swiss Eu
Vietnam playable
Mongolia playable
Ghana Playable

That'd be all, though I doubt this will happen, as everyone wants Bangladesh (Seriously, I never even heard of it until now, and SS is my /best/ class (got a perfect on last final), though I blame the in effectiveness of public school) .

i vote EFTA, Ghana, Vietnam

If we add the EFTA...then we can only add 1 more civ with it.

So, its either:

EFTA + 1 additional civ, or
Switzerland to EU + 2 additional civs.

EFTA + 2 civs = 1 civ too many, haha.

EFTA and vietnam should be added in and playable

CivEditor. You're fired. You post one sentence, all the time, and never have a reason to back up what you say. Come with reason, and logic, and then post and describe your reason and logic so that others can ascertain why you are making your comment and then can use their reasoning to agree or disagree. Simply posting one sentence and filling space is doing nobody here any good.

Since we lost the last page of info, here is a quick run-down with the discussion at this time, with possibilities:

1: Switzerland to EU. 3 new civs
1 (A): Possibilities to add:
-Taiwan
-Mongolia
-Remove ASEAN & add: Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines
-Ghana (currently Minor, and only 1 city on map, I believe)

2: Add NFTA Civ (Swiss, Norway, Iceland), add 1 more civ from above

My suggestion: Add Swiss to EU. The EU is a bit over-powered, but, their cities are a bit spread out and their propensity to be hard to mobilize will off-set that. Then I'd add 2/4 of Malaysia, Vietnam, Mongolia and Philippines because they have the most playable cities available. But that is just my suggestion. Lets get a final verdict on this by the end of Monday.

Actually, scratch my old opinion. I think the best way to go is to put Swiss in the EU and then add:

1. Taiwan (too important in modern politics to be left out)

2. Bangladesh (an emerging economic power, and a border state in between India, SE Asia, and China)

3. Vietnam (as one of the last communist governments in the world, it should be represented)

Actually, scratch my old opinion. I think the best way to go is to put Swiss in the EU and then add:
1. Taiwan (too important in modern politics to be left out)
2. Bangladesh (an emerging economic power, and a border state in between India, SE Asia, and China)
3. Vietnam (as one of the last communist governments in the world, it should be represented)

Haha...and we have a frontrunner for idea to be implemented by the end of Monday. Unless there is overwhelming support of another idea, this is most likely the scenario to be implemented. But, if you all have something else you really want to see...let it be known.

I'm happy with Bangladesh, Taiwan, Vietnam too.

We can always make minor adjustments if necessary after seeing how this pans out, but I know we'd all like to be playing the mod.

That's fine by me. I'll add Bangladesh and Taiwan to the flags folder.

Okay, so it's agreed that the Final choice is:

Swiss EU
Separate Vietnam from ASEAN
Add Taiwan, again
Add Bangladesh

I think that's a reasonable list, there isn't any glaring faults.

However, maybe you should post a map just so we can have a visual representation on what we voted for. We should also have 1 final civ list, too.

Sorry to be a pain, but I'm just going through the civ list for the leaderheads and I really can't help feeling that EFTA is required and its inclusion is more than justified.

Norway, Iceland, Switzerland will have 7-8 cities. As it stands, we have an EU civ with well over 20 cities ie 3times as many as UK mainland, Germany, France, Italy have. This is not good, but to have Norway, Swiss, Iceland in is worse. If you have EU and EFTA then i think we're roughly looking at about 15 vs 7 cities as opposed to a made up civ with 22, which is in my opinion far better.

I think that's worth getting rid of any of the 3 Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh for, who are going to have what 4, 2, 2 cities? Anyway i'm thinking out loud now and sorry for the lateness.

I agree no GLARING faults, just think EU civ is too big. I guess time will tell, if this is too late.

Well, if we do vote out one of them to make EFTA, I propose Bangladesh to be removed. I just really never heard of it untill now, and I'm sure a lot haven't heard of it, either.

Maybe minor Bang and add EFTA? I guess we should vote again, though.

Bangladesh is a small-ish country east of India. But it has massive population density and in terms of population alone probably deserves a slot. I'm going to try to keep out of it unless asked as I'm conscious I've come in rather late with this. I'll gladly accept any decision.

Thatnks for imforming me about it. I also just searched it on Wikipedia, too.

Well, like I said, we should all vote if we want EFTA in, and if so, which country to take out.

I, once again, say Bang out, EFTA in. Bang is a relitivlely small country, and it may turn out to be a one city civ, which was the excuse we used to remove Switzerland. Sure, it has a large population denstity, but I'm not that confident in including it. I'm also okay with not creating EFTA, to.

I agree. EFTA is worth a try and I could do without Bangladesh...

EDIT (had forgotten to add Palestine)

Okay.

That means: Switzerland out from being independent and drops to 47 civs.

Palestine added = 48 civs
Then, Norway, Switzerland & Iceland into EFTA = 49 civs.
Vietnam added: 50 civs

Okay.

That means: Switzerland out from being independent and drops to 47 civs.

Then, Norway, Switzerland & Iceland into EFTA = 48 civs.
Vietnam added: 49 civs
Taiwan added: 50 civs

That works.

However, I don't really like the fact how Haiti is minor and not a failed. Not only is it unstable, but if a country has U.N. peacekeeping troops patroling it, 99% of the time it's a failed state.

Either way, can we please have a map with the new civs?

However, I don't really like the fact how Haiti is minor and not a failed. Not only is it unstable, but if a country has U.N. peacekeeping troops patroling it, 99% of the time it's a failed state.

Either way, can we please have a map with the new civs?

Minor/Failed state list is not completely accurate in the civ list. There have been changes and thats the only list I didn't update because there may be more changes before it is final, anyway. Once you all get the map, then we can make the necessary changes. As for the map. Let me get the Denmark land bridge, and also let me get the city-owner changes done so the map is done.

After that, I will post a WorldBuilder save of the map (will not include things such as cities with correct buildings). I'm not exactly sure how to print a page of the map like Ghengis did...but that seems to be easier. If someone can inform me of how to do this, then I will do that and upload the images.

All you have to do to upload a picture on the internet is:

Find an Image you want and put it on your screen.
Press Prt Scr (Asumming your using Windows, If your using Mac, I'm clueless)
Go to Paint (Or Photoshop, it doesn't really matter which one) (If your in Civ 4, you'll have to hit Esc+Ctrl at the same time to get out without closing it out)
Paste and Save
Go to a image uploading site like Tinypic or Photoshop (You don't need an account for Tinypic, so I go there)
Upload and convert it to fourm BBS: Insert URL of image here
Then Post!

All you have to do to upload a picture on the internet is:

Find an Image you want and put it on your screen.
Press Prt Scr (Asumming your using Windows, If your using Mac, I'm clueless)
Go to Paint (Or Photoshop, it doesn't really matter which one) (If your in Civ 4, you'll have to hit Esc+Ctrl at the same time to get out without closing it out)
Paste and Save
Go to a image uploading site like Tinypic or Photoshop (You don't need an account for Tinypic, so I go there)
Upload and convert it to fourm BBS: Insert URL of image here
Then Post!

Actually, there's an even simpler way. Go to Civ4, get the screen to the desired area. Press Print Screen, then go to your Civ4 Screenshots folder (the one in the My Documents/My Games, not My Computer), see if it is there. Then go to this sight and upload the pic in the form of an attachment. Much quicker than uploading it to a totally different site and so on.

We now have buttons and flags for all 50 semi-finalised civs, the two barbarians (failed and minor) and I've left Bangladesh in, in case there's a change of plan in that respect.

Here's the EFTA flag. Think it's a bit OTT, or is it ok?

http://i26.tinypic.com/juen9s.png

I like it, yeah it's very good.

I like it too. The key thing with huge, sprawling civilisations is that players will always abuse everything to the worst extent - not every player at every time, but every player at least once. Having the EFTA and the EU is far better methinks.

To answer IanInsane:

When we added EFTA, we had to drop one civ.

Taiwan was on the borderline of being added, and is a small 2 city island. I agree that its a strategic civ...but something has to give. The only other choice, I guess, is dropping Vietnam out again and putting Taiwan in.

It basically comes down to what you guys want: 3 city civ Vietnam. 2 city Taiwan. Every other civ, I believe is more or less set in stone. Vietnam is not exactly a "major contributer" to ASEAN. But, I guess leaving it Minor allows ASEAN and China to fight over conquering it to spread it's influence. That allows to put in Taiwan. But...its now up to you guys. Vietnam stays, or Taiwan stays. Can't be both...

I thought we'd binned Bangladesh?

Sorry, I keep adding Failed States as the 50th civ and keep forgetting they don't count as a civ since they're barbarian. So...Taiwan is included, as well as Palestine, EFTA, and Vietnam.

Okay, so that's finalised now, right? If so, let's move on.

Yes. Civ list is 100% done and completed.

So, basically, this thread is closed.