MAP development

We sure have sheep21.

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

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

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

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

The reason why I suggest this is because it would only have good ground to support our choice if we either choose EU to represent the real EU (that is + UK, Turkey and many more) or just the Eurozone. Anything in between would be a bit arbitrary to justify.
 
I'd love to have Lukashenko in as well. Would you let Russia control Belarus? I'm not sure if we should make Russia any bigger. But I won't thwart you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can see your point. But couldn't creating a Scandinavian Union (without Finland and Norway) or single out Poland be considered arbitrary, too...?
 
whoa whoa whoa! Hold thy horses poland out of the EU?
This country spent the time since 1989 actively trying to get into the EU and is joining the European Exchange Rate Mechnisim this year and the Euro itself in 2012. I'd rather have a one city belarus than lose Poland, a country that is actively moving toward the heart of Europe.

EDIT: Turkey is not an EU member although looking to join.
 
Maybe we should make the full EU then and have the UK part of it (or a vassal). Turkey could be its own state. I don't really think any country that uses EU laws etc should be out of it. sheep and niknaks living there have a better feel for it than I do.

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

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

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


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

I'm late for class now but I will think on it and be back in a couple hours. I'll get that dll modification done hopefully tonight.
 
Wow, looks like a missed an entire conversation, my opinion on NATO and EU is that we should probably keep it as it is, 48 civs is enough, (I don't want my computer to explode). Remember, the EU was created so we don't have to have a boatload of European countries, and NATO was created for the civs that might be part of the EU (or Europeans ones that aren't), but just don't fit in as well as the others (i.e. I think England still uses the pound). My vote is to keep it as it is.
 
Well I have to say I'm not adverse to making the UK a seperate civ, but only if there are other independent civs in the same position (otherwise it seems a bit segregated, and we might as well have a complete EU). Out of all the countries in the EU, the UK is the most independent I have to admit. The vassal idea is interesting but it sounds like something out of nothing and perhaps trying but failing to achieve a good medium.

On an informative note: the UK still uses the Sterling currency, Denmark and Sweden also do not use the Euro. At the moment there are no plans to join the Euro for the UK, partly because National Debt actually exceeds the required limit for joining and because public opinion is largely against it (national pride and other rubbish..).
 
the euro wouldnt take us anyway, the state of our economy...
 
Thanks for the different voices. I heard two major objections in regards to my change proposed, although one of them might be a misunderstanding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

20, contributing on one level or another.


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

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

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


Some of the main principles that have guided us:

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

Not creating any fake superpowers.
 
20, contributing on one level or another.




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

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


Some of the main principles that have guided us:

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

Not creating any fake superpowers.

I see what you mean. But both not creating artificial unions and not creating fake superpowers seems impossible if we want to keep the number of civ within 48. Remember what we discussed about African Union? it is a fake superpower at the moment and I was going to see how to combine those neighboring nations together. That would definitely end up going to be some artificial combination.
 
The African union is a trouble spot, agreed. We have to make it not a super power, and very hard for the player or AI to make it a super power. Since it is hard to remove foreign corporations, and they cause a large financial loss, and it is also time consuming to build improvements and buildings, it won't be a super power at all for considerable time, no matter how many cities we give it. And if they can't get rid of their corps, they will run deficits and have a hard time improving (since they will loose units and buildings every turn).

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

Even after having the 7 civs, expanding the Independent African States, and using the barbarians and minor nations?
 
But both not creating artificial unions and not creating fake superpowers seems impossible if we want to keep the number of civ within 48.

yes, I guess my point is that, I think the civs we have picked are our best bet to do this. The way we have it, we have zero fake superpowers, and two fake unions (Latin Americans and independent Africans).
 
edit: double post
 
Do we all agree that keeping the UK, Turkey, and Norway out of the EU is appropriate, and everyone else in? Actually I seem to recall another of the main reason the UK has to be out of the EU, is that it has troops in Iraq.

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

Genghis_Kai if you don't like a united EU, why not have two EU civs based on the blue and green countries here? Balkans under NATO control. Doing that, and based on that map, having Ukraine and Belarus as the extra civs looks perfect.
 
I think NATO with the UK, Norway, and non-EU Balkans is perfect. Turkey on its own.
 
I would agree with DVS regarding Norway UK and non EU Balkans as an expedient and fairly tidy way of doing things. Mainly 'cos Norway & Balkans arent in the EU yet & the UK pursues a foreign policy at loggerheads woth the rest of the EU as well as generally oppossing any centralisation of power towards Brussels.

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

EDIT: Regarding Turkey, happy to see her become independent and not too fussed about losing Sri Lanka either :)
 
Just playing devil's advocate for the fun of it...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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