Final Civ List.

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.
 
We already had a massive debate in the thread "What to do for Europe", 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.
 
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 of Reporters without Borders'.
They have excellent maps where we can figure out which civic to choose for which civ.
Spoiler :








 
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)
 
Top Bottom