A bit dissapointed!

[...] English was the dominant nation of British Empire. Then scots and Eire departed.

This is just like Turks and Ottoman Empire case. Ottoman Empire was dominantly Turkish though it had many minorities.
Just to clarify, Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom. They haven't departed. Furthermore, the Act of Union of 1707 was a parliamentary act, passed democratically, creating the UK without war or violence.
 
Just to clarify, Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom. They haven't departed. Furthermore, the Act of Union of 1707 was a parliamentary act, passed democratically, creating the UK without war or violence.

Keeping it that way without war or violence was the trick though. ;)

*cough* Jacobites *cough*
 
Just to clarify, Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom. They haven't departed. Furthermore, the Act of Union of 1707 was a parliamentary act, passed democratically, creating the UK without war or violence.
this is a form.
yes. there are categories of seperation. being autonomious, being a member of a federal union, being a vassal of an empire etc. in each of these, you are still a part of the larger union.

but at least scotland is a seperate state with its own parliament and president.
if u say scotland is a part of UK still, this is just a form. And according to that form, the queen is still accepted as the monarch of not only UK but also many other countries.
 
Yes, but during most international meeting Scotland is represented as part of the UK. Just like on maps and so on. All German Federal States have an own Parliament and President but they are still part of the Federal Republic of Germany, just like Scotland is part of the UK.
 
Yes, but during most international meeting Scotland is represented as part of the UK. Just like on maps and so on. All German Federal States have an own Parliament and President but they are still part of the Federal Republic of Germany, just like Scotland is part of the UK.

what the international community thinks is more important than their form; formally.

most of the world see scotland as a state itself, rather being a part of UK formally, which means UK isn't practically "recognized" by most countries. england and scotland are their contacts instead of UK.
queen has a superior political power and that is sth different. Her power is not only on UK members but also other commonwealth members.

OTOH, noone in the world sees Bavaria as a seperate state and noone sees California as a seperate state, noone sees any Indian state as a seperate state.

So scotland, california and bavaria are in the same situation as "form" but practically they are considered and recognized much differently. That'S why I said it is a form.
 
Uhh.. the people of Scotland are still represented in the UK Parliament the same as any other Brits, and still subject to UK law. Sure, they have their own Scottish Parliament, but that's really more like state/local government.

As you say, no-one thinks that California isn't part of the US just because it has its own state legislature, state senate and governor.

Unlike say Somaliland or southern Sudan, which aren't effectively governed by the central/national government (ok, thats generous for Somalia). There you would have a case, that they are part of the parent only in "form".

And Scotland is not like say pre-independence (Dominion status) Canada or New Zealand, which were "British" but were governed entirely on their own (and had no representation in the UK Parliament).

But its hard to think of examples of real sub-national separation, so the empire/nation-state model of civ (and now in ciV with a few independent city states) seems like a fairly realistic model.
 
Most people don't see Scotland as state, in contrary they see Scotland a part of the UK. It's important whether the international community sees Scotland as something special or not. And the UK is very important in the UN the UK has a representation and not England or Scotland, in the European Union the UK is member not England and Scotland. There isn't a Scotish Army as well, there are the British Armed Forces. But really what are we arguing, it's all up to the person whether it sees Scotland and England as independents or as the larger UK. ;)
 
Wait,
If Washington is the unique leader for America, then who's that Jefferson in the screenshots?

Nevermind, I guess it is Washington.
 
I think Scotland would be fine if city-states are small civs, rather than just cities. Most of the audience don't perceive Scotland as part of England (or even the UK). Most Americans are surprised to hear Scotland is not independent.

No-one I think has mentioned Carthage for a city-state. It's a good candidate. There's no way Carthage is important enough to be a normal civ in the game so long as we're talking 18-40 civs. But I guess it may well get in the game because of its history in the franchise.
 
Actually, he's increasingly regarded with fear and/or derision in America as well.

But never mind that; I want to ask what the article has to say about other matters besides leaders and war. What about city management? For example, will we be able to ship food?

It didn't say anything about that! The way they are going, I am beginning to not have any hopes for much. Apparently, they aren't making a sequel to Civ... they are making one for Panzer General!
 
I think Scotland would be fine if city-states are small civs, rather than just cities. Most of the audience don't perceive Scotland as part of England (or even the UK). Most Americans are surprised to hear Scotland is not independent.

I wouldn't assume that. You might be surprised to hear that people all over the globe flock to American universities because they are among the best and most financially available in the world. You'd be more likely to find Americans that don't even know what Scotland is, as opposed to ones thinking that it is independent.
 
It didn't say anything about that! The way they are going, I am beginning to not have any hopes for much. Apparently, they aren't making a sequel to Civ... they are making one for Panzer General!
Quit being narrow minded, crying wolf about the sky is falling chicken little. Wait till you get your hands on the game. You are welcome to have an opinion, but you are doing the exact same kneejerk reaction that happened when Civ IV was in production. The Civ 3 fans did the exact same thing you are now pretty much. Yet Civ IV was and is a great game. So instead of being pessimistic about it, why not have a bit of faith in them? They have proved 4 times so far that they know what they are doing. Thats a pretty good track record so far. Infallible? Not at all. Skilled, intelligent, and trying to evolve the Civilization series? Yes.
 
Quit being narrow minded, crying wolf about the sky is falling chicken little. Wait till you get your hands on the game. You are welcome to have an opinion, but you are doing the exact same kneejerk reaction that happened when Civ IV was in production. The Civ 3 fans did the exact same thing you are now pretty much. Yet Civ IV was and is a great game. So instead of being pessimistic about it, why not have a bit of faith in them? They have proved 4 times so far that they know what they are doing. Thats a pretty good track record so far. Infallible? Not at all. Skilled, intelligent, and trying to evolve the Civilization series? Yes.

Until I see solid proof of this game working the way they are saying, I just can't see it going over well! With all of the talk about being inspired by Panzer General and 19th century combat and diplomacy, that, to me, says that they are taking away from the very essence of Civilization... that of the spanning of time! With the removal of Religion and espionage, as well as the the reduction back to 1 leader per civ, they are taking a step backwards, not evolving the franchise further. And the narrower focus, as I mentioned, is making it seem like they want to focus it on ONE era! This is all very dissappointing!

Yes, not a whole lot of information has been released, and what has been released leaves us with more questions then before. But they really need to release some very good information in order to win me back. So far, the only thing that I like is the hexes and the graphics (though they still need some tweaking) and I am interested in the City-State feature. Beyond that, I am far from impressed. Bring me back my Civilization!
 
I wouldn't assume that. You might be surprised to hear that people all over the globe flock to American universities because they are among the best and most financially available in the world. You'd be more likely to find Americans that don't even know what Scotland is, as opposed to ones thinking that it is independent.

I'm not assuming. I'm a Scot who went to undergrad at a US college. It's my experience. ;)
 
Well you are one of millions, I for one welcome the new changes. Multiple leaders for each civ didn't bring anything very special to the table. It woulda been far more interesting to have included more civilizations. Stacks of doom was a horrible system, and while one unit per hex may be imperfect it sounds vastly better then SoDs. Religion was a gimmick at best in 4. No information I have seen said espionage was gone. Regardless it should be a good game. And if its not perfect that okay, cause I still have Elemental coming this year too. :)
 
Drago, the IGN article confirms the removal of both religion & espionage for a focus on diplomacy-yet I don't see how diplomacy can work well if it completely ignores the important roles of religion, ideology & espionage in international relations. Take a look at the religion related polls, & you will see *hundreds* of people who feel the same way. Now I'm not saying that Civ4 religion was perfect-far from it-but we don't abandon something as groundbreaking as religion just because the first time it was attempted it came out a little gimmicky. Instead, you should try & focus on how to make religion a strategy just as important as war, culture, economics & technology-with all the pros & cons.
As for 1-unit-per-hex, I'm also glad to see the end of SoD's, but I'm still not convinced that such a severe, hard cap is the way to go. Why not 1-unit per type-per hex? Or a soft cap which imposes severe penalties for having more than 3 or 4 units in a single hex?

Aussie.
 
Top Bottom