Civs Discussion

[Joe Harker]

Why not make North Korea part of China, and South Korea part of Japan

On the EU, i think it is too much to lump the whole of Europe into one civ, a it simply would be too powerful, and wouldn't at all simulate the complex goings on within it.

My idea would be to have Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Greece. Have Germany stretch over into eastern europe and Greece north into the Balkans

BTW Are you using Rhye's map? Because the play times on that map with lots of civs is very respectable considering the size of the map and in RTW, which uses Rhye's map as well, despite having a huge number of civs and units, copes extremely well, despite all the units, I really doubt that having ~35 civs would have too much of an effect on gameplay. Plus Rhye's map does a good job of making Europe bigger for more civs.

 

[ianinsane]

Hmmm...I'd count Sudan to the world's hot spots. Why include boring Ethiopia?
Instead of adding Congo and New Zealand I'd suggest the two Barbarian civs "Failed States" (aggressive) and "Neutral states" (peaceful)

Philippines -> Turkey is ok
I'd rather keep Myanmar but if it is changed it should probably Thailand

 

[ijnavy]

I think that we should do it on rhye's map.
I'm for not having any Korea.
That's exactly what I want. There should not be more than 30 civs, so drop both koreas, Palestine, and the EU. Then we can add 4 more European civs (Russia is already in).
Why do we need Failed states and neutral states? Make them all barbs or independents.

 

[Lord Civius]

I think that we should do it on rhye's map.
I'm for not having any Korea.
That's exactly what I want. There should not be more than 30 civs, so drop both koreas, Palestine, and the EU. Then we can add 4 more European civs (Russia is already in).
Why do we need Failed states and neutral states? Make them all barbs or independents.

So N Korean land goes to China and S Korea to Japan? I agree with dropping Palestine though I think they could possibly be Barb State. I am definately on the no EU bandwagon, I can't see a world without France, Germany or Italy. Possibly a permanent alliance between western europe countries?

 

[ianinsane]

Let's look at this from this way: What spice would add Germany, Italy and Greece to this mod? None.
The spice are the hotspots. It's the Koreas, Taiwan, Palestine, Pakistan, Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan. Without this spice you can't cook a delicious meal. These are the locations where conflicts are (political, diplomatic, social and military). And not in the middle of Europe.

 

[Joe Harker]

Let's look at this from this way: What spice would add Germany, Italy and Greece to this mod?

Well for a start, a complex europe that could work together or spilt apart,

The EU in RL could spilt as a result of this current crisis due to the Lisbon treaty because of the slow stragiht of affairs, and the inaction of it at present.

 

[Lord Civius]

Let's look at this from this way: What spice would add Germany, Italy and Greece to this mod? None.
The spice are the hotspots. It's the Koreas, Taiwan, Palestine, Pakistan, Colombia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan. Without this spice you can't cook a delicious meal. These are the locations where conflicts are (political, diplomatic, social and military). And not in the middle of Europe.

A defensive pact between US and Taiwan is a good idea. Same could go for S Korea. A strong alliance between China and N. Korea would ensure some conflict IMO. Palestine seems pointless in a Civ atmosphere unless they were a Barb state with UU invisible suicide bomber. Pakistan and India are a must being nuclear powers sharing a border with an enemy. Colombia could be a strong ally with US sharing a border with an aggressive Venezuela. Iraq should be an Independent State though my idea of it being a US base (City) in revolt would add a sense of realism. Afganistan should definately be a Barb state if it is added. I don't have much of an opinion either way on Sudan.

We gotta keep in mind that the human rights of the real world do not exist in Civ. The AI aren't going to care about such things.

 

[ianinsane]

Well for a start, a complex europe that could work together or spilt apart,

The EU in RL could spilt as a result of this current crisis due to the Lisbon treaty because of the slow stragiht of affairs, and the inaction of it at present.

OK, I see your point and I agree, that this indeed would add spice. But in order for having the possibility for the EU to split apart you would still need an EU at game start. So for this the suggestion of Regent Bob would be perfect. You could have an EU civ that controls most of Europe (Germany, France, Spain, Eastern Europe, Sweden, Finland, Greece...) and two more civs which are in reality most likely to split off. I suggest Britain (incl. Ireland) and Italy. These are vassals of EU with very good relations.

A defensive pact between US and Taiwan is a good idea. Same could go for S Korea. A strong alliance between China and N. Korea would ensure some conflict IMO.

Indeed. Very good toughts!

Palestine seems pointless in a Civ atmosphere unless they were a Barb state with UU invisible suicide bomber.

Pointless because too small? I'd love to give it a try on a map. Should be struggling to fight Israel's cultural borders from overtaking their city. I'd suggest an own civ with UU invisible suicide bomber.

Iraq should be an Independent State though my idea of it being a US base (City) in revolt would add a sense of realism.

Hmmm...IMO Iraq is everything but an Independent State. If the US will invade Iran it will happen (among others) from Iraq. In order to achieve this you would need having all Independent States an Open Borders agreement with the US which would cause realism problems in other part of the world. As you say the most realistic and thus best solution would be to have the US control Iraq. Same for Afghanistan IMO, for the same reasons.

We gotta keep in mind that the human rights of the real world do not exist in Civ. The AI aren't going to care about such things.

This is a tough subject...we might not have human rights. But we have Civics which were agreed on should have a more severe impact on international relations. And we have Cultural Ideologies. Both combined should cause a good representation of the diplomatic mechanics that are initiated by the treatment of human rights in single countries.

 

[Lord Civius]

Pointless because too small? I'd love to give it a try on a map. Should be struggling to fight Israel's cultural borders from overtaking their city. I'd suggest an own civ with UU invisible suicide bomber.

Regardless of if we use Palestine or not which I agree it is just too small I think we can come up with a terrorist unit/suicide bomber unit. Maybe in the form of an event. There could be a chance of it being homegrown or from another civ. Something to think about.

Hmmm...IMO Iraq is everything but an Independent State. If the US will invade Iran it will happen (among others) from Iraq. In order to achieve this you would need having all Independent States an Open Borders agreement with the US which would cause realism problems in other part of the world. As you say the most realistic and thus best solution would be to have the US control Iraq. Same for Afghanistan IMO, for the same reasons.

Well I agree a Nation can't truly be independent until they can secure and defend themselves. It would be a far cry to think the transition could be completed by the end of 08. On the other hand they have a representative gov't so most of the non-security issues are decidied by the Iraqi Gov't. This sort of leaves us in a pickle and either way )Independant State or US city base) it would neither be wrong or right . There are however some cities that the security has been handed over to the Iraqi Defense. Possibly some cities can be part of an Iraq Civ while a few cities can be US controlled with low culture and high military presence. This way the US Civ could hand over the cities to Iraq or launch an invasion on Iran. I haven't quite thought this through all the waybut it would leave a little control to the person playing the US Civ and Iraq Civs. Same could go with Afganistan.

This is a tough subject...we might not have human rights. But we have Civics which were agreed on should have a more severe impact on international relations. And we have Cultural Ideologies. Both combined should cause a good representation of the diplomatic mechanics that are initiated by the treatment of human rights in single countries.

But topics like Israeli/Palestani conflict couldn't really exist in the game as they do in RL. Hamas could not launch rocket attacks into Israeli cities or conduct a suicide bobming mission without a DOW. Same thing the Israelis could not go into the Palestinian regions to hunt down Hamas terrorists and take out their strongholds. We would need to rework the whole mechanics of the game to deal with a country fighting terrorism. This is what I meant by human rights, in the game if someone attacks you it is war and not politics.

 

[Mr Historical]

What would happen if the European Union gets its own civ with 1 to 3 centralized cities in Europe (i.e. Brussels, Luxembourg, Vienna maybe). Then add the major civ's that belong to the EU (Germany, France, UK, etc.) and make them Vassals to the EU.

Cultural and attitude bonuses might help to hold the Union together after the start of the game.

I believe this would simulate the actual working of the EU in that:
the Open Borders would allow for trade routes;
the separate militaries would be on the same side, but without unified command (apologies to NATO);
the individual civ's could split from the Union (i.e. Ireland).

I don't know how the game rules and AI would react, but I think it would be interesting to test it out.

This gets my vote.

 

[Mr Historical]

Why dont we have an event something like 'drones' in SMAC .
The more libraries ,schools,non-state religion(among others) a city has,the more likely it produces a 'protester' these can work a bit like angry citizens,but if there is enough of them can cause civ-wide ANARCHY!(or something).However,if you are running a 'bad'civic,you can crack down on them.Itll bring sanctions,relatons hits and possible war.
This is Probably impossible.

 

[Mr Historical]

'South Korea part of Japan'
South Korea part of US helps give greater freedom to negociate for japan

 

[ijnavy]

We can't give the US all of this territory. They already are the 3rd largest country. Giving them Iraq and Afghanistan (they don't control these countries) makes them even more powerful. I don't think that giving them south Korea for a greater freedom to negotiate for japan is a good idea.
Should we give them the Czech republic since they have a missile defense there?
Or southern Japan since they have a military base at Okinawa?

 

[Lord Civius]

We can't give the US all of this territory. They already are the 3rd largest country. Giving them Iraq and Afghanistan (they don't control these countries) makes them even more powerful. I don't think that giving them south Korea for a greater freedom to negotiate for japan is a good idea.
Should we give them the Czech republic since they have a missile defense there?
Or southern Japan since they have a military base at Okinawa?

Good point but is there a way to reflect the reality of the US military presence worldwide? Strategically this would give the US a big advantage but would be realistic. Seems Civilization is not equipped to handle a country having bases and airfields abroad. Would it be possible to create a new improvement that grants a civ a fort or airfield in an allies territory? Possibly charging the civ gold per turn. It should also give the host civ the option to revoke the privelage.

 

[ijnavy]

I know a modcomp that gives culture to forts. I don't think that it is realistic since an army base can not flip any cities. It should be just one tile, but cannot be flipped. I think that it should produce units and have maintenance half the amount as cities do. You should be able to give one tile to a civ. They get a fort built there and you get some gold. You can also give a civ a 2 by 2 tile fort in which case you get a +1 diplomatic bonus with the civ. This would simulate many military bases without making them cities.

I think that this would be very hard to mod, but it's an idea.

 

[hevehoc]

and a very good idea too

 

[Séamas]

This looks like a great mod, but why are some of you suggesting Ireland split from the EU? That isn't going to happen...

If you remove the UK, France, and Germany from the EU, you're left with states that normally pursue neutrality, thus making the whole thing even more complicated, as you have states likely to pursue militaristic policies tied to a civ that won't do so. Not to mention that several EU states that would in real life pursue complete neutrality at all costs.

 

[Lord Civius]

I know a modcomp that gives culture to forts. I don't think that it is realistic since an army base can not flip any cities. It should be just one tile, but cannot be flipped. I think that it should produce units and have maintenance half the amount as cities do. You should be able to give one tile to a civ. They get a fort built there and you get some gold. You can also give a civ a 2 by 2 tile fort in which case you get a +1 diplomatic bonus with the civ. This would simulate many military bases without making them cities.

I think that this would be very hard to mod, but it's an idea.

That is a great idea but not quite what I had in mind. A player could grant or lease an ally a tile in their territory. The ally who now owns the tile (his color now fills the tile) could send workers to improve the tile with a military improvement. Unit support costs apply.
"Fort" (Army base)- would be no different than a normal fort you would build in your own territory.
"Airfield" (Airforce base)- Take-off and land aircraft, perform all air missions, just like over a city or aircraft carrier.
"Naval Station" (Navy base)- Coastal tiles only. Ships can dock in the tile, just like if there was a city there and heal 25% faster.
Just like any improvement they can be destroyed by enemy attacks like pillaging and bombardment. The allies should have to sign some sort of treaty that would require 10 turn notice before cancelling open borders. Like a peace treaty requires 10 turns before DOW. I think they should have a maintenance cost but no producing units.

 

[hevehoc]

That is a great idea but not quite what I had in mind. A player could grant or lease an ally a tile in their territory. The ally who now owns the tile (his color now fills the tile) could send workers to improve the tile with a military improvement. Unit support costs apply.
"Fort" (Army base)- would be no different than a normal fort you would build in your own territory.
"Airfield" (Airforce base)- Take-off and land aircraft, perform all air missions, just like over a city or aircraft carrier.
"Naval Station" (Navy base)- Coastal tiles only. Ships can dock in the tile, just like if there was a city there and heal 25% faster.
Just like any improvement they can be destroyed by enemy attacks like pillaging and bombardment. The allies should have to sign some sort of treaty that would require 10 turn notice before cancelling open borders. Like a peace treaty requires 10 turns before DOW. I think they should have a maintenance cost but no producing units.

also you should be able to airlift to at least airfield.

 

[Mr Historical]

We should include american/french/british bases round the the world -So if the europeans get bolshy,america can just invade!