MAP development
- Thread starter kbrennan7654
- Start date
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
Based on what I have posted previously, I would like to point out a few observations, which I think needs our attention.
1) NATO vs. EU. At the moment, NATO is significantly weaker than EU. In fact, NATO only consists of 3 significant powers, namely UK, Turkey and Norway. In comparison, EU is make up of France, Germany, Spain, Italy to just name a few, the imbalance would comes as no surprise. If the initial reason was to weaken EU by splitting Europe into the two, I would think they should be at least closer in size. Moreover, NATO, which consists of just so few nations in comparison to the reality, makes it a bit unrealistic.
2) Africa. DVS already pointed out that Africa needs further look into once the city placement is started, I guess it is something we are aware of before. To be specific, I think the African Union is way too powerful, because in reality, it is only a hypothetical group of minor African nations which are no where as powerful as the selected African nations to be represented on their own (South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria etc). Moreover, the choices of the Independent African States seems a bit arbitrary to me. May be there is some links between Morocco, Libya, Zimbabwe and Kenya that I overlooked?
3) Latin America. In general, I think the selections are well chosen. But there is a similar problem to Africa but to a lesser extent. That is, the south America Socialist Allies will be more powerful than say Colombia or Peru.
4) Asia. In general, I think the selections are well chosen. May be a few nations are missing and can be discussed as to whether they should be combined to their neighbor or put them as minor nations/ barbarians.
5) Failed States. Making the failed states to form an ally seems a bit unrealistic. If they can do so well in diplomatic, they probably wouldn't be known as failed states. At the moment, the Failed States is greater than quit a few African nations and it is quit unrealistic.
I would make the following suggestions for our consideration:
1) I respect the consensus on having EU as one nation, so I would suggest to keep EU in general but removing NATO and replace it by the Commonwealth Realm. Note that I meant Commonwealth Realm NOT the Commonwealth of Nations. The former, consisting mainly the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ, shares a common Queen in constitution, mostly Anglo-Saxon in their demographics, sharing the same language and their political stances most of the time. If keeping EU to represent the countries within the Eurozone, EU and Commonwealth Realm are completely exclusive to one another! This is very different in the case of EU vs NATO. Moreover, we can then have EU, USA and Commonwealth Realm and some minor nations to form the NATO allies - a much more realistic NATO.
In consequence, this is what I would suggest for Europe:
Reduce EU to the Eurozone
Change NATO to Commonwealth Realm
Add the following civ:
Denmark, Norway and Iceland as one civ (Call Scandinavia if you like)
Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria as one civ (Call Balkan states if you like)
Poland as one civ
Turkey as one civ
Remove the following civ:
Australia
Canada
Belarus
Expand the following civ:
Neutrals (include Sweden, in fact I would suggest to remove those non European neutrals in here)
Russia (include Belarus)
Ukraine (include Baltic states)
Georgia (include Azerbaijan)
Put these under Minor state or Barbarians:
Serbia, Croatia and Albania.
2, 3 & 4)
In general, I would suggest to try combining the minor states into the bigger neighbors instead of grouping too many minor states together as one as in the case of African Union. This will help reducing the sizes of African Union and South America Socialist Allies (Actually, this should be called Latin America Socialist to be more accurate).
5) Do we really have to have the Failed states as a civ? Can't we represent it just by Barbarians?
It takes me a lot to write but in summary I am not suggesting to change the civ list a lot. I am actually only suggesting to remove 4 existing civs (Australia, Canada, Belarus and Failed States) and replace by 4 new civs (Scans, Balkan, Poland and Turkey) out of the 48 civs in the list (not counting NATO -> Commonwealth because the leader head can stay the same).
Hope we can consider this.
1) NATO vs. EU. At the moment, NATO is significantly weaker than EU. In fact, NATO only consists of 3 significant powers, namely UK, Turkey and Norway. In comparison, EU is make up of France, Germany, Spain, Italy to just name a few, the imbalance would comes as no surprise. If the initial reason was to weaken EU by splitting Europe into the two, I would think they should be at least closer in size. Moreover, NATO, which consists of just so few nations in comparison to the reality, makes it a bit unrealistic.
2) Africa. DVS already pointed out that Africa needs further look into once the city placement is started, I guess it is something we are aware of before. To be specific, I think the African Union is way too powerful, because in reality, it is only a hypothetical group of minor African nations which are no where as powerful as the selected African nations to be represented on their own (South Africa, Egypt, Nigeria etc). Moreover, the choices of the Independent African States seems a bit arbitrary to me. May be there is some links between Morocco, Libya, Zimbabwe and Kenya that I overlooked?
3) Latin America. In general, I think the selections are well chosen. But there is a similar problem to Africa but to a lesser extent. That is, the south America Socialist Allies will be more powerful than say Colombia or Peru.
4) Asia. In general, I think the selections are well chosen. May be a few nations are missing and can be discussed as to whether they should be combined to their neighbor or put them as minor nations/ barbarians.
5) Failed States. Making the failed states to form an ally seems a bit unrealistic. If they can do so well in diplomatic, they probably wouldn't be known as failed states. At the moment, the Failed States is greater than quit a few African nations and it is quit unrealistic.
I would make the following suggestions for our consideration:
1) I respect the consensus on having EU as one nation, so I would suggest to keep EU in general but removing NATO and replace it by the Commonwealth Realm. Note that I meant Commonwealth Realm NOT the Commonwealth of Nations. The former, consisting mainly the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ, shares a common Queen in constitution, mostly Anglo-Saxon in their demographics, sharing the same language and their political stances most of the time. If keeping EU to represent the countries within the Eurozone, EU and Commonwealth Realm are completely exclusive to one another! This is very different in the case of EU vs NATO. Moreover, we can then have EU, USA and Commonwealth Realm and some minor nations to form the NATO allies - a much more realistic NATO.
In consequence, this is what I would suggest for Europe:
Reduce EU to the Eurozone
Change NATO to Commonwealth Realm
Add the following civ:
Denmark, Norway and Iceland as one civ (Call Scandinavia if you like)
Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria as one civ (Call Balkan states if you like)
Poland as one civ
Turkey as one civ
Remove the following civ:
Australia
Canada
Belarus
Expand the following civ:
Neutrals (include Sweden, in fact I would suggest to remove those non European neutrals in here)
Russia (include Belarus)
Ukraine (include Baltic states)
Georgia (include Azerbaijan)
Put these under Minor state or Barbarians:
Serbia, Croatia and Albania.
2, 3 & 4)
In general, I would suggest to try combining the minor states into the bigger neighbors instead of grouping too many minor states together as one as in the case of African Union. This will help reducing the sizes of African Union and South America Socialist Allies (Actually, this should be called Latin America Socialist to be more accurate).
5) Do we really have to have the Failed states as a civ? Can't we represent it just by Barbarians?
It takes me a lot to write but in summary I am not suggesting to change the civ list a lot. I am actually only suggesting to remove 4 existing civs (Australia, Canada, Belarus and Failed States) and replace by 4 new civs (Scans, Balkan, Poland and Turkey) out of the 48 civs in the list (not counting NATO -> Commonwealth because the leader head can stay the same).
Hope we can consider this.
Genghis_Kai said:
I didn't tell you, our "failed states" civ is supposed to just be a different name/flag for the barbarians.
I agree with you about Africa, the AU is much too powerful the way it is. I was hoping we could weaken it by making more cities fall into the independent African nations civ and the minor nations civ, and possibly by exaggerating the size of several of the 7 African countries we are including as civs. The Independent African Nations group is supposed to contain countries that are not closely aligned to the USA/west. Perhaps you can think of other improvements here.
Don't forget the AU civilization is going to start out with undeveloped cities/tiles, and a lot of foreign corporations in its cities, so it will be very weak for its size.
Latin America.
True again about the union being too strong, but since we can't have every country, we have to have some artificial unions right? Keeping them to close allies is the best we can do.
It was called Latin American Socialist Allies at first, I don't know why I changed it. We can change it back no problem.
NATO vs. EU.
Personally I think it should be ok the way it is. We can adjust the way we have the EU and NATO, we could change some countries around to make them more balanced if that is what you think is appropriate. We could also add the other civs you suggested.
To be honest, I have to say I personally dislike the commonwealth idea. I want to have a Canadian civ, we don't relate to the commonwealth at all. I can't speak for Australians. Plus one of the personal reasons I started this mod was to play as Canada, so I would really be disappointed to see it left out at this point. lol
We don't want to make another dominate civ. UK + Canada + Australia would be huge. The superpowers should be the USA, Russia, China, and the EU, with India on their heals. The NATO civ as devised is not meant to lead on its own, it is more an overpowered UK rather than a powerful union of its own. Closely aligned with the US, and EU.
Genghis_Kai said:
I'm sure you have a better understanding than I do of how the Minor Nations civ works. If this civ has a bunch of cities scattered around the globe, do we risk it becoming overly powerful? The reason I thought we'd use minor nations and barbarians was to avoid making our artificial unions too powerful, while still avoiding giving extra territory to countries that already have enough of it (ie China, Brazil, EU).
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
Re: Failed States: Ah, now I know 
Re: Latin America and Asia I agree with you too that we should not further adding lands to those super nations (China, US, Russia or India). I will have a look at how to make some more combination and propose them later. I will of course keep in mind to have minimal changes to not wasting any existing team effort on leaderheads and civilopia etc.
Re: Europe I would of know that this was the reason In fact, I am an Australian citizen (although I am native Chinese) and so I know exactly what you meant.
If that's the case, may I suggest to change my original proposal to NATO -> UK, and keeping Australia (as ANZ) and Canada? Is there anything special about 48 that we can't have 50 civs in total?
Re: Latin America and Asia I agree with you too that we should not further adding lands to those super nations (China, US, Russia or India). I will have a look at how to make some more combination and propose them later. I will of course keep in mind to have minimal changes to not wasting any existing team effort on leaderheads and civilopia etc.
Re: Europe I would of know that this was the reason
In fact, I am an Australian citizen (although I am native Chinese) and so I know exactly what you meant.If that's the case, may I suggest to change my original proposal to NATO -> UK, and keeping Australia (as ANZ) and Canada? Is there anything special about 48 that we can't have 50 civs in total?
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
Just to clarify on my previous comment about Minor nations. I didn't actually mean the civ 'minor nations' but the members of the 'African Unions'. I completely agree with you on using 'minor nations' and 'barbarian' which are both non playable, to reduce those union's sizes.
MasterOfDomain
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2009
- Messages
- 98
I think the biggest issue (though I haven't actually seen the map myself) is with Europe and the UK. We can't make the UK too powerful, too weak (by being on its own), included in Europe (at risk of inflating the already super-powerful EU) and associated with nations it isn't realistically with; my only problem with the current NATO idea is that it doesn't seem as though it's a global presence and that theirs any connection.
I can see Kai's reasoning behind including Australia and Canada with the UK, because of their cultural connections, language and ethos. Would forcing these powers together make them too overpowered, compared as well to China, the US and the EU? I know it's not as clean-a-method of seperation as we'd have liked, but the picture I'm getting at the moment is of an oddly divided Europe.
We really need to get this one sorted out!
Anyone any other ideas/thinks I'm spouting rubbish.
I can see Kai's reasoning behind including Australia and Canada with the UK, because of their cultural connections, language and ethos. Would forcing these powers together make them too overpowered, compared as well to China, the US and the EU? I know it's not as clean-a-method of seperation as we'd have liked, but the picture I'm getting at the moment is of an oddly divided Europe.
We really need to get this one sorted out!
Anyone any other ideas/thinks I'm spouting rubbish.
see where your coming from MoD
Oz, UK, Canuk & NZ wouldnt be over powerd cos the military of them all put together is maybe 500,000 in all branches. The militaries of australia nz and canada are generally smaller than even the british army.
I like playing devils advocate
Oz, UK, Canuk & NZ wouldnt be over powerd cos the military of them all put together is maybe 500,000 in all branches. The militaries of australia nz and canada are generally smaller than even the british army.
I like playing devils advocate
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
NATO is also where I am having trouble with at the moment. It probably represent less than 10% of the actual NATO, making it very strange.
I suggested Commonwealth Realm. But I also understand DVS's concern. So I am now basically suggest to have UK, ANZ and Canada each independently. I just checked my city list. Even excluding ANZ and Canada, UK on its own still possess a lot of island cities (including all the other Commonwealth Realm islands). So UK is still as significant, as say Japan.
It turns out that what I am suggesting is a strong EU civ (the Eurozone) + UK + several independent European nations with about 4-6 cities each.
I suggested Commonwealth Realm. But I also understand DVS's concern. So I am now basically suggest to have UK, ANZ and Canada each independently. I just checked my city list. Even excluding ANZ and Canada, UK on its own still possess a lot of island cities (including all the other Commonwealth Realm islands). So UK is still as significant, as say Japan.
It turns out that what I am suggesting is a strong EU civ (the Eurozone) + UK + several independent European nations with about 4-6 cities each.
well in mh mind the UK is at about the same level as Japan and that Japan would be an even closer ally of USA if it pursued a more interventionist foreign policy.
Yes, UK has lots of islands and British Overseas Territories to populate the worlds oceans.
Yes, UK has lots of islands
and British Overseas Territories to populate the worlds oceans.
ianinsane
Prince
Nobody ever will be completely happy with these EU and NATO civs because it is simplifying the complicated status they have in reality. So I understand and share your concerns. But to mix the UK up with AUS and CAN IMO would not make it better but worse. Maybe it will be not overpowered by military means at game start but it will be overpowered concerning production and research and can too easily become overpowered later in the game.
My favourite solution for this would actually be to have Turkey and UK both independent. Give UK excellent infrastructure, all necessary national wonders and the military it has in reality. This should work. The huge power the UK has in reality is not because of it's military (26th in the world by military size) or production (GDP is the 5th highest in the world with about 2.7 trillion $...the EU without UK has 14.1 trillion $) it is because of money/trade/banking and diplomacy.
But I totally agree with DVS. It took us soooooooooo long to agree on this NATO/EU solution. So I beg you: Let's leave it the way it is for V1.0. Then play it. If it grosses people out we should think about a change for V2.0.
My favourite solution for this would actually be to have Turkey and UK both independent. Give UK excellent infrastructure, all necessary national wonders and the military it has in reality. This should work. The huge power the UK has in reality is not because of it's military (26th in the world by military size) or production (GDP is the 5th highest in the world with about 2.7 trillion $...the EU without UK has 14.1 trillion $) it is because of money/trade/banking and diplomacy.
But I totally agree with DVS. It took us soooooooooo long to agree on this NATO/EU solution. So I beg you: Let's leave it the way it is for V1.0. Then play it. If it grosses people out we should think about a change for V2.0.
ianinsane
Prince
The reason we left two slots open, if I remember correctly, was to have two civs that could be used in the game to create vassals on the diplo screen, I forget the name of the button offhand. I think the revolutions mod we've merged may also need extra civs to work, but that is just a guess, I haven't played around with it yet.
However, perhaps we can expand the dll to 52 civs? Or 55? This may really be pushing it, I don't know.
I was never totally happy with the way we had our nato civ either, so I'm not adverse to changing it.
So I'm I right in saying the civs you want to add are Turkey, and a Scandinavian union?
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
Friends, I hope we won't feel too pressured when I raise the Europe issue again. This wasn't my intention. Of course, if the civ list can't be changed, then fair enough for me.
But I feel there aren't that much differences between the voices I heard so far. It doesn't seems to be such a burden to discuss a little further.
We all agreed to have EU. We all agreed the EU should be relative in size to China or US. We all feel the NATO at the moment seems to be a bit strange (at least the voices I heard so far). There were different voices on combining Australia and Canada into UK, but we now already agreed to keep Australia and Canada separate. There aren't much conflicts we have right?
Put it this way, if we are going to actually convert our civ list onto a scenario with over 500 cities (530 cities in the 1940 scenario), we will need to discuss further. Like I mentioned in previous post, there are still lots of gray area. And when I see civs like Belarus which is only going to have one city, I think I should voice out instead of just ignoring it.
But I feel there aren't that much differences between the voices I heard so far. It doesn't seems to be such a burden to discuss a little further.
We all agreed to have EU. We all agreed the EU should be relative in size to China or US. We all feel the NATO at the moment seems to be a bit strange (at least the voices I heard so far). There were different voices on combining Australia and Canada into UK, but we now already agreed to keep Australia and Canada separate. There aren't much conflicts we have right?
Put it this way, if we are going to actually convert our civ list onto a scenario with over 500 cities (530 cities in the 1940 scenario), we will need to discuss further. Like I mentioned in previous post, there are still lots of gray area. And when I see civs like Belarus which is only going to have one city, I think I should voice out instead of just ignoring it.
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
No problem Genghis, and sure the civ list can be changed!
We've all put lots of work into this, and I think the main thing is, we want to make it well. You obviously have the best understanding of the map we are using, and were not involved in the original discussion, so we are glad to have your input. Nothing is set in stone, changes can always be made.
NikNaks and were just discussing that we may as well push the limit on our dll higher, so we don't have to worry about a physical cap. The only question is, how many civs can we include and still make the scenario playable?
So if we end up with 50,51,52 or whatever, I don't think that is the end of the world. Some may disagree. I think Bahmo already wants my head on a pike for going with 48! lol
We've all put lots of work into this, and I think the main thing is, we want to make it well. You obviously have the best understanding of the map we are using, and were not involved in the original discussion, so we are glad to have your input. Nothing is set in stone, changes can always be made.
NikNaks and were just discussing that we may as well push the limit on our dll higher, so we don't have to worry about a physical cap. The only question is, how many civs can we include and still make the scenario playable?
So if we end up with 50,51,52 or whatever, I don't think that is the end of the world. Some may disagree. I think Bahmo already wants my head on a pike for going with 48! lol
We sure have sheep21.
So I'm loosing my Lukashenko? damn! Oh well, I can live with that. Just thought it would add some variety to eastern europe, but pulling Poland out of the EU serves the same purpose.
My question now is, what is the idea behind taking countries out of the EU? Why have an EU without Poland and the Scandinavian countries? I don't know as much about this as you guys... what is the Eurozone, the countries that use the currency? Do Poland + Scand countries not?
So I'm loosing my Lukashenko? damn! Oh well, I can live with that. Just thought it would add some variety to eastern europe, but pulling Poland out of the EU serves the same purpose.
My question now is, what is the idea behind taking countries out of the EU? Why have an EU without Poland and the Scandinavian countries? I don't know as much about this as you guys... what is the Eurozone, the countries that use the currency? Do Poland + Scand countries not?
Genghis_Kai
GEM modder
I would suggest to keep it as 50 for the moment or 52 if you guys want to leave some room for creating vassals. Let's not get our head too big... yet
