Civs Discussion
- Thread starter NikNaks
- Start date
whitelaughter
Warlord
You can easily justify combining Egypt and Syria: from 1958 to 1961 they were the same country, and after Syria seceded attempts were made to once again rejoin: largely failing due to Syria's anarchy & coups.
Besides, from a game perspective, this means the player has a good in-game rationale for extreme hostility to Israel: the desire to unite their territories.
Put the capital in Cairo and a Forbidden Palace in Damascus.
Looking at the map we're going to use, I suspect that continental south east asian nations that we aren't including will be eaten up by the ones we are (I think we have Myanmar and Thailand). We're only using a huge size map remember, not GEM. The original idea was to have Vietnam as part of the independent nation block, but there may not be room for that. We'll see I guess.
Definitely, that's the idea. See the first post in this thread.
Both great ideas. Do you know how we can code/otherwise include the mongol yurt unit and goblin lair features? Those could be used in a few places.
In fact I think it would be great if we could have those kinds of units appear whenever a powerful civ invades and occupies another country. Ideally more often and stronger in certain regions, for example the middle east and south east asia, with weaker ones in say africa or latin america.
whitelaughter
Warlord
If you don't include Vietnam, then you may as well combine all of south east Asia into a single state. All the nations are largely Buddhist; all have a history of military coups; all have an isolationist history;all of them dislike China. There are substantial differences between Thailand and Burma/Myanmar of course, but no greater than the differences between either of them and Vietnam.
Ok I decided to use this thread to post a response to something Sheep21 asked me over Yahoo. My response got a little to out of hand and I didn't want to crash his im program.
Perhaps other Canadians want to weigh in. This is just how I see it.
Re: what do people in the rest of Canada think of Quebec and vice versa?
sorry about this novel dude, but it’s a bit complicated and I can’t sum it up any better.
as for Quebec, it's sort of split in the rest of Canada. People in Alberta (oil rich province) really dislike the financial situation with Quebec; they think that they get too much from the federal government. Basically most people outside Quebec think that to one degree or another, but it intensifies in Alberta.
See, most other provinces also get more from the federal government than they pay (including Manitoba, the one I am in). So the rich provinces (Ontario, Alberta, BC), basically give money to the rest of us to make up for the extra money they take in from resources. Resource money in this country gets divided up and shared with every province, even the ones that have none, since Trudeau. Tax money from resources I mean, other than hydro power they are not nationalized. So people in the provinces that get what are called equalization payments tend to be more sympathetic to Quebec than those in the rich provinces on the financial issue.
So basically Albertans hate this, they think because the oil is in their province they should get all the income. This makes no sense to me (The Yukon has no people but huge resources, should they all be billionaires?) Alberta is already disproportionately rich as it is, they would be the most backwards province if they didn't have oil, instead of the richest. Hell, they have two NHL hockey teams, my province has zero, and other than oil, our industry and trade is a lot more advanced than Alberta’s. So as I said, it's really split. The city I am from, Winnipeg has a huge French population, so I would say there is probably less people here who have a problem with Quebecers than some other places. I have no problem with them really.
The separatists are another story altogether. I think most people outside Quebec really dislike at least separatist politicians if not all people who voted for separation last time (49% I think). Personally I think they should be allowed to split if they had a clear mandate from the people, but I wouldn't be happy about it. We have French as our second language (can't work for the gov anywhere without being fluent) and do a number of other things to respect their diversity or whatever, and they want to pay us back by declaring independence, it's an insult to us. These people (separatists) are whiners to me, but the more I dislike the federal government of Canada, the more I see the case for independence.
I especially would not be happy about their plan last time around to keep using our currency and navy to protect them. If they split the government of Canada should not subsidize a cent of it. But that's just me, I'm in favor of more direct democracy, most people in the rest of Canada would probably want the armed forces to prevent quebec separation (which was the PM's plan if they had lost the vote last time it turned out).
Now if Alberta wanted to declare independence, then we would have to use the armed forces or whatever to prevent it. Different story completely.
Really, most Canadians either hate people from Quebec, or people from Ontario, or people from Alberta, or any combination of the three.
Or Newfies.
Oh, and people from Saskatchewan hate people from Manitoba. However that is mostly about football. And the fact they the all just wish they were Manitoba.
Perhaps other Canadians want to weigh in. This is just how I see it.
Re: what do people in the rest of Canada think of Quebec and vice versa?
sorry about this novel dude, but it’s a bit complicated and I can’t sum it up any better.
as for Quebec, it's sort of split in the rest of Canada. People in Alberta (oil rich province) really dislike the financial situation with Quebec; they think that they get too much from the federal government. Basically most people outside Quebec think that to one degree or another, but it intensifies in Alberta.
See, most other provinces also get more from the federal government than they pay (including Manitoba, the one I am in). So the rich provinces (Ontario, Alberta, BC), basically give money to the rest of us to make up for the extra money they take in from resources. Resource money in this country gets divided up and shared with every province, even the ones that have none, since Trudeau. Tax money from resources I mean, other than hydro power they are not nationalized. So people in the provinces that get what are called equalization payments tend to be more sympathetic to Quebec than those in the rich provinces on the financial issue.
So basically Albertans hate this, they think because the oil is in their province they should get all the income. This makes no sense to me (The Yukon has no people but huge resources, should they all be billionaires?) Alberta is already disproportionately rich as it is, they would be the most backwards province if they didn't have oil, instead of the richest. Hell, they have two NHL hockey teams, my province has zero, and other than oil, our industry and trade is a lot more advanced than Alberta’s. So as I said, it's really split. The city I am from, Winnipeg has a huge French population, so I would say there is probably less people here who have a problem with Quebecers than some other places. I have no problem with them really.
The separatists are another story altogether. I think most people outside Quebec really dislike at least separatist politicians if not all people who voted for separation last time (49% I think). Personally I think they should be allowed to split if they had a clear mandate from the people, but I wouldn't be happy about it. We have French as our second language (can't work for the gov anywhere without being fluent) and do a number of other things to respect their diversity or whatever, and they want to pay us back by declaring independence, it's an insult to us. These people (separatists) are whiners to me, but the more I dislike the federal government of Canada, the more I see the case for independence.
I especially would not be happy about their plan last time around to keep using our currency and navy to protect them. If they split the government of Canada should not subsidize a cent of it. But that's just me, I'm in favor of more direct democracy, most people in the rest of Canada would probably want the armed forces to prevent quebec separation (which was the PM's plan if they had lost the vote last time it turned out).
Now if Alberta wanted to declare independence, then we would have to use the armed forces or whatever to prevent it. Different story completely.
Really, most Canadians either hate people from Quebec, or people from Ontario, or people from Alberta, or any combination of the three.
Or Newfies.
Oh, and people from Saskatchewan hate people from Manitoba. However that is mostly about football. And the fact they the all just wish they were Manitoba.
whitelaughter
Warlord
[grins] What you are describing is repeated in most nations, merely changing the names.
So for Australia, Western Australia is the state which has the huge natural resources; their politicians complain that they are subsidising everybody else. NSW and Victoria complain that as the industrial & population hubs, they should have more. Adelaide makes the same claim based on their being a centre of culture.
It'd be nice to think that we could work out some agreement, but telling people that they are hard done by is a staple of rabble rousing; politicians aren't going to give up this way of getting re-elected.
In Civ terms, couldn't Quebec be treated as a conquered vassal state?
So for Australia, Western Australia is the state which has the huge natural resources; their politicians complain that they are subsidising everybody else. NSW and Victoria complain that as the industrial & population hubs, they should have more. Adelaide makes the same claim based on their being a centre of culture.
It'd be nice to think that we could work out some agreement, but telling people that they are hard done by is a staple of rabble rousing; politicians aren't going to give up this way of getting re-elected.
In Civ terms, couldn't Quebec be treated as a conquered vassal state?
VeteranLurker
Warlord
Have you looked at the Revolutions mod for a way to handle the separatist issue? I've not played it repeatedly or played it very recently, but it does have a dynamic for cities splitting away if they are not kept in-line (I recall you could do this through happiness, bribes, military presense, and combinations thereof). I don't know what happens though as you approach the limit for the number of civs in the mod.
[BTW, there is a version of Revolutions which incorporates Dales Combat Mod and the Super Spies mod, mentioned elsewhere as possible additions.]
[BTW, there is a version of Revolutions which incorporates Dales Combat Mod and the Super Spies mod, mentioned elsewhere as possible additions.]
yes thanks, I'm going to check it out. Looks good.
It could be, but I don't think we should do it that way. Just leave Canada united.
whitelaughter
Warlord
Skell Jell
HistoryHermann
What about making a Former Soviet Socialist Republics civ??
Maybe make Israel a vassal of the US...
Good eye Skell Jell, but the final civ list is here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=301906
Former Soviet Socialist Republics is a good idea for a civ. For version 1.0 of this mod though, we are going to stick with the list we have. If we keep changing things around this mod will never get finished!
Thanks for your input as always
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=301906
Former Soviet Socialist Republics is a good idea for a civ. For version 1.0 of this mod though, we are going to stick with the list we have. If we keep changing things around this mod will never get finished!
Thanks for your input as always
Similar threads
