Civs Discussion

[Mr Historical]

ok
including UNASUR instead of the individual SA ?
good,but might make it a bit too powerful

 

[SoI]

I think that England could be united with Poland, Baltic States and etc becose they have similar proUS position, and the countries founders of the EU like France, Germany Italy and Spain could be easily merged into one.

In the begining both blocks should be be allied with US representing NATO but i think this alliance should be premanent only between US and English block.

Russia can have Serbia, Armenia and maybe Khazahstan

Islamic world should be certainly divided into two powers: shia and sunni.

 

[Joe Harker]

I think that England could be united with Poland,

Well since our entire construction/cleaning/Farming industry is made up of Poles and other eastern european citizens it does make a bit of sense.

I don't think the alliance should be "permant" for the UK only, partly because Brown has started to shy away from America and much of the British population don't like the thought of being American puppets. Sure we rely on them, but who in the western world doesn't?

(BTW it's Britain not England, you might annoy some Scotmen
It's strangely quite common for foreigners, especially from the sub contient to call Britain, England and mean the same thing, there was a Scotland v Bangladesh match couple of years ago and some people thought it was the English B team! )

 

[SoI]

(BTW it's Britain not England, you might annoy some Scotmen
It's strangely quite common for foreigners, especially from the sub contient to call Britain, England and mean the same thing, there was a Scotland v Bangladesh match couple of years ago and some people thought it was the English B team! )

Yeah, I know, i know... my native language is always trying to creep in my English
You see in Russian( and as far as I know also in French and Italian) we actually rarely call Britain Britain or UK(mostly in official diplomatic documents) and the word England is used both to denote the UK and the it's part.

P.S.My favorite team has already annoyed some scotmen by winning the UEFA cup



Maybe you are right, and western countries should be more bindуed by Western ideology(described in ideologies thread) than by alliances.

Also, i think that lugging of some smaller states by greater powers should be somehow represented, though i don't actually know how

 

[Mr Historical]

Well since our entire construction/cleaning/Farming industry is made up of Poles and other eastern european citizens it does make a bit of sense.
true,lets stick with nato

(BTW it's Britain not England, you might annoy some Scotmen
It's strangely quite common for foreigners, especially from the sub contient to call Britain, England and mean the same thing, there was a Scotland v Bangladesh match couple of years ago and some people thought it was the English B team! )

ha, speaking as a scotsman ,I can say that you can call the uk england if you want-its not as if firaxis can tell the difference either

 

[ianinsane]

Lebenon should also be a "failed state" as civil war seems probable.

I presume Lebanon is too small too include at all...it will be probably be controlled by Syria or Israel

Maybe align the pro-russian Serbia with Russia. Also, Poland should definitely, 100%, be part of NATO and not EU. And technically, this is a 2008 mod so Albania and Croatia should not be part of NATO, because they join next year. So, if you are going to keep them part of NATO, with that rationale, Barak Obama should also be the US leader

I agree with Serbia.
I don't agree with Poland because of gameplay-issues. I think we should try to include into NATO civ only non-EU states and EU-states which are remote like UK . Europe is small enough. We should try not to fragment EU on the continent for it would weaken its power in an unrealistic way.
Concerning Croatia and Albania (not sure if it is large enough at all...) I think letting them be part of NATO is a little blurring but nevertheless neglectable.

What's everyone's opinion on including UNASUR instead of the individual SA countries?

IMO: No way! In the first place the individual SA states, especially Venezuela and Brazil, are too much on their way to become significant global players. There is much potencial for conflict between individual SA states and non-SA states, like USA-Venezuela. Also there are conflicts between SA states like Venezuela and Colombia. And...didn't we say we don't want to have fictual superpowers?

Concerning UNASUR I'd prefer my suggestion of having several "Apostolic Palaces": One for each Cultural Ideology. The "Apostolic Palace" of "Latin American" could then be UNASUR. Although I'd prefer it to be Mercosur.

In the begining both blocks should be be allied with US representing NATO but i think this alliance should be premanent only between US and English block.

IMO Permanent Alliances in Civ produce something like Federations. None of the civs we have on our list has such a close tie with another one. It would be a model if we had an independent UK. Then I could imagine it having a permanent alliance with EU. Same if we had EU nation states seperate. For example, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and UK would have a permanent alliance representing the EU.
But in this case I say in the beginning there are no permanent alliances in our scenario. Of course we'd have defensive pacts where in reality are defensive pacts, too. So all NATO-states should have defensive pacts with each other (EU, NATO, USA, Canada). So should have USA and Taiwan as well as USA and South Korea...

 

[Joe Harker]

ha, speaking as a scotsman ,I can say that you can call the uk england if you want-its not as if firaxis can tell the difference either

I think their arguement would be that Scotland (and Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter) are techinally part of an English Empire, being that the throne of England and Scotland are held by the same monarch (of course you could make the arguement that it was a Scottish monarch that succeeded the English Throne, but there are ~50million of us and ~4-5million of you )

But i would much rather it being called the UK, or Britain preferably in this mod (unless you use NATO as a name) and in the actual game of Civ 4.

 

[Mr Historical]

Yup ,I agree

 

[Dabur]

hi ,

hmmm , maybe france should be on its own ?

have a nice day

 

[Mr Historical]

there are ~50million of us and ~4-5million of you )

But we've got the nukes!

 

[Joe Harker]

But we've got the nukes!

Theres nothing that really beats that , except that we control the trade of battered Mars Bars [/End stereotypical joke about Scotland]

 

[ijnavy]

This is my opinion on the civs:
North America: United States of America - controls Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Panama, Diego Garcia (Indian ocean), Pacific Islands (Midway, Guam, Marshal Islands, Samoa, etc), Iraq, no Afghanistan. Canada; Mexico: Controls Belize, Honduras, and Guatemala.
South America: Venezuela - controls Carribean, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Suriname, Guyana, and French Guyana. Colombia: Controls Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. Brazil. Argentina: Controls Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay.
Europe: Western Europe, Balkans, and Russia. Instead of the EU, NATO, and Russia.

 

[RedRalph]

I think the above post, while not without flaw, is more realistic than the OP. the game would run so slowly as to be unplayable.

 

[ijnavy]

Why would the game be too slow? Is it because of the number of civs? I think that we can go up least up to 28 civs.

Please correct me if this has already been decided:
Africa: Nigeria, Congo, Egypt, South Africa, and Ethiopia.
Asia: Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, India, China, Indonesia, and Japan.
Australia/Polynesia: Austria, New Zealand, and ???Papua new Guinea???.

Religions (Lets make it 8 since we have more civs than usual): Catholic Christianity, Protestant, Sunni Islam, Shiite Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Judaism. Russia, parts of Balkans and Kazakhstan will be either Protestant or Catholic.

 

[lamppost4]

Why would the game be too slow? Is it because of the number of civs? I think that we can go up least up to 28 civs.

Please correct me if this has already been decided:
Africa: Nigeria, Congo, Egypt, South Africa, and Ethiopia.
Asia: Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, India, China, Indonesia, and Japan.
Australia/Polynesia: Austria, New Zealand, and ???Papua new Guinea???.

Religions (Lets make it 8 since we have more civs than usual): Catholic Christianity, Protestant, Sunni Islam, Shiite Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Judaism. Russia, parts of Balkans and Kazakhstan will be either Protestant or Catholic.

I am thinkin that you forgot Taiwan.

 

[ijnavy]

I don't see any point of adding Taiwan. They would have only one city (maybe 2). They do have a somewhat powerful military, but not even any nuclear weapons. They still have no chance of taking China, so they will remain with 1 or 2 cities the entire game.

 

[Dabur]

I don't see any point of adding Taiwan. They would have only one city (maybe 2). They do have a somewhat powerful military, but not even any nuclear weapons. They still have no chance of taking China, so they will remain with 1 or 2 cities the entire game.

they could be a great base for the US of A , .....

even with just one city , so why not

 

[ijnavy]

That would not be right (the US would be too strong), I would just make Taiwan independent. If you want a US base in near the far east, use Okinawa. Are all the other civs lists good?

 

[Dead Flag]

I think Britain should be a separate civilisation. We've never considered ourselves to be European. Also, Israel might as well be considered part of the United States.

 

[NikNaks]

True, we don't. That's why they're part of the NATO civ.