The assumption is that the Current top 10-20 powers are ruined (particularly high pop ones). So Australia/Central Asia are in a better position to be world powers than Germany, France, US, Japan, China, India, Russia, etc.
The idea is
1. N amount of time between now and "The Great Mistake"
2. Effect of "The Great Mistake" itself
3. Semi-Recovery period
4. The actual seeding
1,2,3 change things to make them less recognizable.
As an Australian I'd say I agree with Evie. I can say that we don't really care much for expanding our influence over other countries. We sure as heck would like to maintain positive relations with countries (especially for trade benefit), but really we don't want 'control' anyone (at least people who are not Tony Abbott *COUGH COUGH*)
If anything Australia'd become an isolationist republic (because the super-neoconservatives are going to say "Argh! Stop the refugees! Those inhumane refugees that are just trying to seek a better life!" [*facepalm* ]), but even that's really, really far fetched. Our ties to the Britain are strong, and our love of the monarchy runs deep (especially now that one of the royals is Australian). Australia'd rather send out aid or focus on rebuilding itself (the trailer showed water levels up to the base of the Pyramids, so basically say goodbye to some important cities and heavily populated land on the east coast :/ )
ALL THAT ASIDE: We already know (well not really) that Brazilia is militaristic, anyone going to hazard a guess as to what the others a like?
You know what is confusing? The Gameinformer article saying that "players will choose leaders and factions (no longer bundled with one another)". Most other articles suggests otherwise. Then Tom's Guide presents Daoming Sochua as the representative of the Pan Asian Cooperation, but also say that "before you take off in Beyond Earth" youll choose a nation to sponsor you and one of eight main characters", which sounds like they are separate things...
For now, I guess I'll just assume it's like Civ V - one faction/leader, plus the spaceship, cargo, crew and planet.
the PC gamer article had a line "Supremacy doesn't always mean military. So the civ with the more militaristic bent, which is Brazilia? may pick Supremacy, but they may not. Harmony would be just as good, Purity would be just as good as an expression of military strength."
Note that it was "Brazilia?," so the writer may have misheard the guy
Maybe he couldn't remember the faction's full name, like in "American Reclamation Corporation", or maybe he used Brasilia as a metonymy for Brazil, South America or Latin America.
Anyway, I wonder what's the backstory for Brazil becoming militaristic... Argentina's malicious influence, I bet.
You know what is confusing? The Gameinformer article saying that "players will choose leaders and factions (no longer bundled with one another)". Most other articles suggests otherwise. Then Tom's Guide presents Daoming Sochua as the representative of the Pan Asian Cooperation, but also say that "before you take off in Beyond Earth" youll choose a nation to sponsor you and one of eight main characters", which sounds like they are separate things...
Noting was "proved." All there is to support the concept of Quantum Entanglement as a means of superluminal communication is a single "experiment" where the theory did not outright fail.
Copts didn't exist at the time of the Pyramids being built as a large part of coptic identity is Christianity.
A Coptic Caliphate is just as silly as an Asartu autocephalous patriarch.
There is one thing. Currently, in the world, only 3 countries are net food exporters: the United States, Australia and New Zealand. All other countries in the world, no joke, eat more than they produce. China is one of the worst, with an immense population that has been, historically, vulnerable to famine again and again.
In a scenario where, let's say, trade routes across the world would be severely disrupted on the long term, Australia and New Zealand would still be well fed and stable, while most of the world could collapse into conflict. Or imagine that the US food production somehow takes a big hit: suddenly, the entire world is starving and the Aussies sit on top the most desirable resources on the planet - cows and wheat.
Their position is also beautifully defensible... Although they probably still wouldn't be able to survive a US-led invasion with the current power balance.
Apart from that, obviously, things change over time. Technology evolves, governments fail... Size doesn't always matter. Consider how Britain, an even smaller country that Australia, did defeat China in a war at a specific point in time.
There is one thing. Currently, in the world, only 3 countries are net food exporters: the United States, Australia and New Zealand. All other countries in the world, no joke, eat more than they produce. China is one of the worst, with an immense population that has been, historically, vulnerable to famine again and again.
As an Australian I'd say I agree with Evie. I can say that we don't really care much for expanding our influence over other countries. We sure as heck would like to maintain positive relations with countries (especially for trade benefit), but really we don't want 'control' anyone (at least people who are not Tony Abbott *COUGH COUGH*)
If anything Australia'd become an isolationist republic (because the super-neoconservatives are going to say "Argh! Stop the refugees! Those inhumane refugees that are just trying to seek a better life!" [*facepalm* ]), but even that's really, really far fetched. Our ties to the Britain are strong, and our love of the monarchy runs deep (especially now that one of the royals is Australian). Australia'd rather send out aid or focus on rebuilding itself (the trailer showed water levels up to the base of the Pyramids, so basically say goodbye to some important cities and heavily populated land on the east coast :/ )
ALL THAT ASIDE: We already know (well not really) that Brazilia is militaristic, anyone going to hazard a guess as to what the others a like?
I don't think "apocalyptic" is the right word. Big Mistake, sure... that's even mentioned. But the trailer shows many historical sites and cities still in tact, just overpopulated. It wasn't an apocalypse, it was a long slow death that's still going when you bounce off to the stars.
I was at the announcement panel and the panelists definitely hinted at something apocalyptic. Humanity apparently had to "get back on its feet" after the Great Mistake. They also hinted that it was probably some sort of nuclear exchange in Asia.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Copts are ex definitione CHRISTIANS
]), but even that's really, really far fetched. Our ties to the Britain are strong, and our love of the monarchy runs deep (especially now that one of the royals is Australian). Australia'd rather send out aid or focus on rebuilding itself (the trailer showed water levels up to the base of the Pyramids, so basically say goodbye to some important cities and heavily populated land on the east coast :/ )
