Civs Discussion

[Dead Flag]

Yes, but I was referring to ijnavy's suggestion.

 

[ijnavy]

If we have Britan, then why not add Germany (just as strong)? If we have Germany, why not Italy, France, and Spain. If we divide Western Europe, then there are going to be too many civs. I don't think that NATO should be a civ, its just an organization.

I don't understand why Israel would be part of the US. It's a separate country, that is friendly with the US. And it has a strong military.

 

[Joe Harker]

If we have Britan, then why not add Germany (just as strong)? If we have Germany, why not Italy, France, and Spain. If we divide Western Europe, then there are going to be too many civs. I don't think that NATO should be a civ, its just an organization.

Because Germany and France and the rest of Western Europe, act as one a lot of the time, however Britain can on key issues, differ in its approach and attiude to the situation.

However an alternative to Britain being seperate, would be to have Britain join up with the Aussies and New Zealand as we still share many strong ties, plus our foregin policy has been quite similar and our miltary has always worked together in training and in combat and in the event of a major war it would be likely that British, Austrailan and New Zealand troops would be under a combined commonwealth command structure.

We also have similar in culture to them, arguably more than any country other than the USA. So if Britain had to be within another state, then it could be part of the commonwealth. It would still have a alliance with Europe, through NATO, just it wouldn't be a central part of the EU, which let's be honest we are not really. We don't have the euro and we have several opt outs in the various treaties. So out of all the nations in the EU, certainly the major ones, Britain is the most different, from culture to money policy and basically everything else.

 

[ijnavy]

Then lets make the UK its own country. Also, lets make it so a country controls only its own territory. So Russia does not control Eastern Europe and the UK does not control Australia (except if it is a region like western Europe).

I also purpose an Eastern Europe that includes, Poland, the Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Czech, Slovakia, and Austria.

That gives us a total of 29 civs, not too many to make the game slow.

 

[Joe Harker]

What are the nations you have currently?

 

[ijnavy]

28 civs
United States of America
Canada
Mexico
Colombia
Venezuela
Brazil
Argentina
Egypt
Nigeria
Democratic republic of the Congo
South Africa
Ethiopia
UK
Western Europe
Eastern Europe
Balkans
Russia
Turkey
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Kazakhstan
Iran
Pakistan
India
Indonesia
China
Japan
Australia

I just thought about it, and dropped New Zealand.

We might add these (from the first post)?
Permanent Neutrality - Switzerland (capital), Costa Rica, Liechtenstein Turkmenistan.
Independent African States - Angola (capital), Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Zimbabwe, Kenya.
African Union- all African countries that don't fall in to our "independent" or "barbarian" groups.
Failed States - Somalia, Eritrea, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea. There should also be strong hostile barbarian rebel cities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and western Sudan. Weaker barbarian groups elsewhere, maybe without cities, including in Columbia, Chechnya (Russia), Mexico, Algeria, Basque (EU) and Tibet (China).
Independent Nations - Papua New Guinea, Brunei, Singapore, Dominican republic, Peru, Chile, Vietnam

 

[ianinsane]

There's definately missing the Koreas and Taiwan. And I see no actual indication to have "western europe", "eastern europe" and "balkans" as a civ. I still stick with the first list.

 

[ijnavy]

Can you explain why we need a Korea and Taiwan? There is no EU or NATO civ. Do you want all of Europe to be one huge civ? We can try to divide Europe up into the most important civs, but I think that we would have too many.

 

[ianinsane]

Korea and Taiwan both are sizzling volcanoes. If one day we have a direct conflict between the two superpowers USA and China then it will be most probably because of one of these hot spots. North Korea is a nuclear power, member of the "Axis of Evil" and thus claimed to be one of the major threats to USA. Erasing Korea and Taiwan would mean to erase two of the three hot spots that could trigger a major war.
I neither want to have a single "European" civ and I am not happy at all about that NATO civ. I would prefer to have Europe divided into EU (with all actual members), Russia (including Belarus, Ukraine and Serbia), Turkey and a neutral civ (Switzerland, Iceland, Norway...). But since none of the suggested compromises was widely accepted (my one included) I still am with the first list.

 

[Amogos]

What do you mean by "permanent neutrality" because Switzerland’s military troops own guns in there homes so that they are prepared for an invasion. I think either take them off entirely or explain "neutral".

 

[Arwon]

Because Germany and France and the rest of Western Europe, act as one a lot of the time, however Britain can on key issues, differ in its approach and attiude to the situation.

However an alternative to Britain being seperate, would be to have Britain join up with the Aussies and New Zealand as we still share many strong ties, plus our foregin policy has been quite similar and our miltary has always worked together in training and in combat and in the event of a major war it would be likely that British, Austrailan and New Zealand troops would be under a combined commonwealth command structure.

We also have similar in culture to them, arguably more than any country other than the USA. So if Britain had to be within another state, then it could be part of the commonwealth. It would still have a alliance with Europe, through NATO, just it wouldn't be a central part of the EU, which let's be honest we are not really. We don't have the euro and we have several opt outs in the various treaties. So out of all the nations in the EU, certainly the major ones, Britain is the most different, from culture to money policy and basically everything else.

I don't think we've done the "combined commonwealth structure" thing since the disasters of World War 1.

 

[ijnavy]

Korea and Taiwan both are sizzling volcanoes. If one day we have a direct conflict between the two superpowers USA and China then it will be most probably because of one of these hot spots. North Korea is a nuclear power, member of the "Axis of Evil" and thus claimed to be one of the major threats to USA. Erasing Korea and Taiwan would mean to erase two of the three hot spots that could trigger a major war.
I neither want to have a single "European" civ and I am not happy at all about that NATO civ. I would prefer to have Europe divided into EU (with all actual members), Russia (including Belarus, Ukraine and Serbia), Turkey and a neutral civ (Switzerland, Iceland, Norway...). But since none of the suggested compromises was widely accepted (my one included) I still am with the first list.

Then lets reach a compromise. Lets not have more than 30 civs to make the game not too slow. We have 28 no. Since people want to add both koreas and Taiwan, lets decide what civ we want to take away so we have exactly 30. My list is in post 46.
Any other problems with my list?

 

[ijnavy]

I neither want to have a single "European" civ and I am not happy at all about that NATO civ. I would prefer to have Europe divided into EU (with all actual members), Russia (including Belarus, Ukraine and Serbia), Turkey and a neutral civ (Switzerland, Iceland, Norway...). But since none of the suggested compromises was widely accepted (my one included) I still am with the first list.

The problem would be that the EU would be too strong. Russia should still control its own territory and no more or it will be too strong. How about we take all of the Balkans and make it a civ, since most of the Balkans are not EU. Also many people want the UK be a separate civ. The EU would still be too strong. Then we would have the EU (without the Balkans and UK), Balkans, UK, and Russia in Europe. Instead of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, UK, Balkans, and Russia. Then we could add the 2 koreas and Taiwan to make exactly 30.

 

[Joe Harker]

I don't think we've done the "combined commonwealth structure" thing since the disasters of World War 1.

North Africa and Italy, as well as in India during WW2, and the Korean War (the last major conventional war involing several commonwealth forces), and several special operations in South East asia during the 50s, our miltary still train with Australian armed forces, particulary the navy.

 

[ijnavy]

Does everyone agree on everything except Europe:
United States of America
Canada
Mexico
Colombia
Venezuela
Brazil
Argentina
Egypt
Nigeria
Democratic republic of the Congo
South Africa
Ethiopia
Russia
Turkey
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Kazakhstan
Iran
Pakistan
India
Indonesia
China
Japan
Australia
Taiwan
North Korea
South Korea

That makes 27 civs.

 

[Joe Harker]

The problem would be that the EU would be too strong. Russia should still control its own territory and no more or it will be too strong. How about we take all of the Balkans and make it a civ, since most of the Balkans are not EU. Also many people want the UK be a separate civ. The EU would still be too strong. Then we would have the EU (without the Balkans and UK), Balkans, UK, and Russia in Europe. Instead of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, UK, Balkans, and Russia. Then we could add the 2 koreas and Taiwan to make exactly 30.

That sounds good, although don't forget Turkey.

For neutral civs like Norway and Swizterland i would lump them with the EU as they have several treaties with the EU that make them almost a part of the european trading bloc, but not quite fully in.

 

[ijnavy]

Does everyone agree on everything except Europe:
United States of America
Canada
Mexico
Colombia
Venezuela
Brazil
Argentina
Egypt
Nigeria
Democratic republic of the Congo
South Africa
Ethiopia
Russia
Turkey
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Kazakhstan
Iran
Pakistan
India
Indonesia
China
Japan
Australia
Taiwan
North Korea
South Korea

That makes 27 civs.

So, how does everyone else think about this list + Eu (All EU except UK and Balkans/Eastern Europe), UK, and Balkans/Eastern Europe.

Most of the Balkans and Eastern Europe are not in the EU. Some people want the UK to be its own civ.

30 civs altogether.

 

[ijnavy]

Does everyone agree on everything except Europe:
United States of America
Canada
Mexico
Colombia
Venezuela
Brazil
Argentina
Egypt
Nigeria
Democratic republic of the Congo
South Africa
Ethiopia
Russia
Turkey
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Kazakhstan
Iran
Pakistan
India
Indonesia
China
Japan
Australia
Taiwan
North Korea
South Korea

That makes 27 civs.

So, how does everyone else think about this list + Eu (All Europe except UK and Balkans/Eastern Europe), UK, and Balkans/Eastern Europe.

Most of the Balkans and Eastern Europe are not in the EU so I decided to make them one civ. Some people want the UK to be its own civ.

30 civs altogether.

 

[ianinsane]

I'd like to add Palestine.
And I still like the idea of collecting other nation states under neutral and barbarian civs like "Permanent Neutrality", "Independent African States", "African Union", "Failed States" and "Independent Nation". To divide that huge African continent between 5 civs would probably make some of them too powerful.

And something basic...as other people have pointed out I also wouldn't mind to be able to play only 10 turns per day because there are so many civs - instead of renouncing complexity. We don't have to desperately try to save on civs since I guess there will be another version of this mod with radically less civs and more superpowers. And as I expect versions 2.0 or 3.0 of this mod to be, the time spent playing one turn will be long enough, so longer waiting times between the turns won't be such a problem.

And once again I strongly disagree with the idea of a "Balkans" civ. Up to this point we managed it, not to "invent" any civs. Besides of Africa. But even there the "Independent African Nations", "Failed States" and "African Union" civs won't be en bloc but scattered to represent the fragmentation of this continent.
A "Balkan" civ would unite the only region in Europe that is everything but united. The only European wars of the last 50 years took place in or between states of the Balkans. The main cultural and political borders go right through the Balkans. After all this is the region where the term "Balkanization" comes from. To unite these states into one civ would mean to turn reality upside down.

If you are concerned of Russia and the EU becoming to powerful if the Balkans is shared between them I'd suggest to share it between Russia (Belarus, Serbia), EU (Croatia) and "Independent States" (Ukraine) and let Belarus, Serbia and Croatia have a development malus like underdevelopment and too much , ...

 

[Joe Harker]

To divide that huge African continent between 5 civs would probably make some of them too powerful.

Yes, but you could make the land extremely poor (which for sub saharan africa is already true) so that their growth and power is limited.