1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Final Civ List.

Discussion in 'Civ4 - World 2009 Mod' started by DVS, Dec 9, 2008.

  1. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,494
    I don't understand why you made EU and NATO instead of european civs. The civilisations of europe are not nearly as merged as you portray them to be. They each have independant leaders and politics, and furthermore, if NATO declares sanctions or war, not all nations go through with it. Just look at Iraq. My colledge studies have just lead me to read a lot about the EU and the EU you describe, as a single nation without teritorial souverenty will not come to be in many years (if not decades).
    I don't realy see how they could all count as the same nation.
     
  2. sheep21

    sheep21 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    562
    Location:
    London
    thankyou for your interest but this one if firmly settled for version 1 after many many debates of the subject.
     
  3. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,494
    I am not debating it or trying to change it. I am just confused as to what posesed you to do so? I find it interesting.
     
  4. Joecoolyo

    Joecoolyo 99% Lightspeed

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,908
    Location:
    茨城県
    We already had a massive debate in the thread "What to do for Europe", if your curious about our decision, check it out :)
     
  5. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,494
    Thanks, I shall.
    Lol, I saw it. So it was a arbitrary desision. Let the people vote and than make the desision regardles. :( To bad, I was realy hoping for some goor deason. Thanks once again for your time.
     
  6. ianinsane

    ianinsane Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    393
    Location:
    Germany, EU
    I'm not sure what the vote count was when the decision actually was made. I think a lot of people voted after the desicion was made.
    But BTW, we don't have a NATO civ anymore. During the process of map balancing we decided to split NATO into UK, Norway and Turkey. We were aware of the problem that the EU is not completely merged and agreed to represent that by having UK as its own civ.
    The fact that not all NATO countries go to war when one of them is will probably be represented by having Canada, USA, UK, Norway, EU and Turkey have all defensive pacts with each other. So when one is attacked all other NATO states declare war, just as it is the Casus foederis in reality.

    The (real) final civ list can be found here.
     
  7. DVS

    DVS El Presidente

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,037
    Location:
    Canada

    lol. Well PPQ_Purple, I'm sorry our 10 months of hard work haven't lived up to your standards. On our next mod we will spend more time attempting to please you.
     
  8. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,494
    Lol, no one ever can. I am a comunist utopist.:)
    I sort of like the idea of 1 world 1 nation, or 1 europe 1 nation.
    So I just hoped you had agood explanation for it. Something that holds water so to say.
    And no need to get bitter now.:mischief:
     
  9. Lord Wolf

    Lord Wolf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2008
    Messages:
    26
    Location:
    Austria

    That's not true!!! If I may defend the decision and the people who took it.
    First most people voted vor an EU, that's completely clear. Yes they voted for an special type of it, a sort of compromise between the two possibilities, but that would have been very difficult to implement in the game in fact I can imagine. Furthermore I don't really think it would have worked well with the current civ-mechanis. So it's better that they didn't make it like that.
    Moreover there was actually a very massive and long debate in many threads, although you might not have read all of it.
    I live in a member state of the European Union (Austria) and therefore followed very closely and with great interest the whole debate. I brought up my arguments like many, many others and there were many very good arguments (for both solutions)! Eventually I'm very content with the decision the modders made and think it will work very well and also be quiet realistic. And I can also explain why:
    The EU isn't a type of superstate like the US, that's entirely true. But it's nor a loose alliance of states which share a common market and nothing more. Maybe you might think that if you only learned about the insitutions of the Union and the power it has, but there's more. The european countries aren't only binded together via the EU (which is also already much more than only a trade-agreement)! They share many common values and although the national states fiercely defend their national power and privileges, in fact they act in many political fields very similiar and often also beforehand arranged. What I want to say is, that the EU might not seem as a superpower itself because many important decisions are still made in Berlin, Paris, Rome and not in Brussels, but in reality Europe acts in agreement in many, many political fields and therefore should also be represented in the game by one european civs for the states of the EU.

    Well, I think the decision was a good one and the modders let go the debate fairly long enough and I also explained why I think it was a good one. I hope that helped you a little bit ;).

    greetings
    Ben
     
  10. DVS

    DVS El Presidente

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,037
    Location:
    Canada
    Thanks Lord Wolf, very very well put.

    The vote we had was a little confusing and not really worded properly; and it was basically split. As Lord Wolf mentions, most of the decision making came based on the discussion that occurred over about 3 or 4 main threads (and 6 months or so).

    Ok, I updated the first post in this thread with the absolute, dead final, no changes possible Civ List, that has been modified to better suit our map (thanks to the expertise of Genghis Kai, and contributions from others). Well, unless...

    lol
     
  11. DVS

    DVS El Presidente

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,037
    Location:
    Canada

    hmm, I was just reading something this afternoon, and it totally related to our mod. (lol, this thing is taking over my life!)

    At first I agreed with you about Israel's media, but now I disagree. It is completely state censored. I didn't realize that until I read:

     
  12. Joecoolyo

    Joecoolyo 99% Lightspeed

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    9,908
    Location:
    茨城県
    But is that Israel's media? Was he working for an Israeli newspaper, television station, or radio station? It seems as if the government is protective about what media gets into the country so it can protect its own interests, but it isn't oppressive to its own media.
     
  13. DVS

    DVS El Presidente

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,037
    Location:
    Canada
    Splitting hairs there I think. If a country represses international media, it certainly doesn't have a free press.

    Also, we should make sure not to give free media civics to any country with journalists in prison.

    http://cpj.org/imprisoned/2008.php

    Sadly that list includes Israel and many others.
     
  14. ianinsane

    ianinsane Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Messages:
    393
    Location:
    Germany, EU
    I am totally with you, DVS.
    Another good source whether to determine media civics is the press freedom index of Reporters without Borders'.
    They have excellent maps where we can figure out which civic to choose for which civ.
    Spoiler :








     
  15. Bahmo

    Bahmo King

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    836
    Perhaps I should have coded more media civics, but at least we need to change some suggestions based on this. The results don't surprise me very much, but at least some change needs to be made between State-run and State-censored. So North Korea, Burma, Turkmenistan, and Eritrea--wait; what the hell is Eritrea--being at the bottom means they should have State-Run media, but China and Vietnam, though pretty low, tend to welcome foreign stuff in so long as it's safe, so that's just censored, meaning Russia and Mexico fall into the State-Censored category as well.

    Alternately, though, press freedom might have to distinguish between certain types of restrictions. So there you could make a difference between China, where certain things are clearly illegal, and Mexico, Afghanistan, and Iraq, where people aren't technically banned from saying things, but do run the risk of being killed for it, not even necessarily by the government so much as by criminals the government can't control. These sorts of distinctions might need to be further addressed if we want to be realistic.
     
  16. PPQ_Purple

    PPQ_Purple Techpriest Engineer

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2008
    Messages:
    3,494
    If I might be so bold as to counterdict you. Why would they make any diference. While these things are diferent in how they play out, the end resault is the same (e.g. You risk geting inprisoned/killed by someone else). Civ has made many such compromises anyway.
     
  17. sheep21

    sheep21 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    562
    Location:
    London
    because in one country (china) it is officially sanctioned by The Law and in another (such as Mexico) it is a direct result of the Failure of the Rule of Law.

    If the governments in Iraq, Afgahn and Mexico could adequately enforce there laws all would be well. However with the likes of china, well, you embarrass the state, your going to jail and "re-education" as the Law dictates.
     
  18. Bahmo

    Bahmo King

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    836
    Exactly. Different situations which have similar effects don't mean you should use the same civic for both of them, because different civics can have similar effects, as well. Also, if a civic's name is wrong, it definitely needs to be changed. So it looks like that settles it in terms of whether or not I need to add more Media civics--I do; at least I have to add one for the default situation where a state is too weak to even prevent the fallout from media, and quite possibly two civics representing varying degrees of censorship would be a good idea, too.

    Unfortunately, no it wouldn't. Though things would certainly be more peaceful, they still would be bogged down by the backwardness that their populations espouse due to all the theocratic leanings.
     
  19. sheep21

    sheep21 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    562
    Location:
    London
    well there we differ in opinion

    If the Police can be taught there duty to the law is more important than what mummy and daddy told them in 1975. The Law is the Law and if held up by the State and vigorously enforced it can be made to work.
     
  20. Adhesive86

    Adhesive86 Warlord

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    266
    Location:
    Yorkshire, England
    Hey sorry if this has been answered elsewhere- i've tried to have a look...

    But can i ask about civ names? I have seen in the leaderhead screenshots that you are using terms such as 'republic of', 'federal republic' etc etc.

    However, Kai's final civ list gives only the single name e.g. China, Myanmar.

    Can I recommend that we do it this way for 2 really key reasons:

    1) Civics can change- no use calling yourself a republic when you've just had a totalitarian revolution.

    2) When searching in the diplo screen or elsewhere it is much easier to recognise the civs by name only, and not searching through 39 republics or whatever (which may also go off screen)
     

Share This Page