Discussion in 'Civ4 - World 2009 Mod' started by DVS, Dec 9, 2008.
I agree, and that's the reason why I've used the simplified names.
Well, all I know if that the RevolutionDCM mod we're using has DynamicCivNames mod included within it, which assigns unique names to civs depending on civics, size, vassalage and such. For example, a country using State Property will be called "People's Republic of ...", a country using all of the last civics in the list will be called the "Free Republic of..." and so on and so forth.
Oh yeah, even though the name is changed on the diplo screen, its still shown as "China" or Germany" on the scoreboard, so no need to worry .
Returning to our Civics conversation, I have added two more Civics in the media category: "Unruly" is the default Civic, representing a country where the government has control neither of what people say, nor of what is done to them because of it. "Regulated" now lies between "Corporate" (for sale) and "State-Censored," and represents a lighter form of censorship. Others are the same as before, though with slightly finagled effects to differentiate them from the new ones.
Hence, now Mexico can be counted as having the Unruly civic, while China can be counted as having the State-Censored one.
If I might so bold to say but "Unruly" just does not realy sound good. It sounds more like anarchy than freedom of speech. (witch is lore vise corect but still)
Have you considered using some other name, something like "Open" or "Free" or "Unregulated"?
Why were Norway, Iceland and Denmark merged into one Nordic civilization, while Sweden was added as a neutral state?
In my opinion, it would be a better idea to put Sweden and Denmark into the same civilization, as these two countries generally have a much more similar economic and political situation compared to Norway. And as this mod is supposed to take place this year, I guess you're also aiming to most accurately represent the nations financial situations? Why then put Iceland and Norway in the same civ? While Iceland has been hit especially hard by the current world financial crisis, while Norway hasn't been to much affected by it. Also, Iceland is in debt, while Norway has large profits each year, added to a fund which today holds 350 trillion USD.
I would be very happy if I could get an explanation for this.
I'll try to explain it...just let me find the right thread...
OK, here, on top of that page the discussion starts...
I think "open" and "free" sound a little too positive, but "Unregulated" is alright. I have no time, right now, to change the file yet again.
I read it, how deeply disappointing it's too late to change anything now (or is it?). This feels so wrong, as both Sweden's and Denmark's politics are more similar to EU politics than to Norway's politics. So if we first should separate Denmark and Sweden from EU, it would be more correct to merge them into one country and leave Norway alone. Eventually, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland could be merged into an EFTA-civ. I also have problems seeing why Sweden should be separated from EU just because of some opt-outs, when they are even less related to the other netutral states, which they then would become a part of.
I had the same concerns but this is definately the way the first version will be. However, it will be possible to make changes on civs for the second version.
I don't know if this has been talked about and I just started to look into this mod but how do the scores show? Like, I would assume U.S. is at top, right, followed closely by China or Russia?
who knows once the data is all put in. US China EU top 3 i would imagine.
The scoring system in CIV is highly biased toward population size. population = 50%, technologies = 20%, territories = 20% and world wonder = 10% count, and NOTHING ELSE (that is, military size, amount of gold, city improvement etc. doesn't count at all). And in the first 20 turns, territories is not even counted, making population weights 50/80 ~ 63%.
Therefore, we can predict the score based on the population size, assuming technologies and world wonder scores are roughly equal: China -> US -> EU -> India -> Japan -> Brazil -> Russia.
Except I seem to remember from your cities excel file that in game the USA has a higher population than China?
Oh yes. You are correct.
DVS, could you edit your first post to match the final civ list that Genghis posted on here?
Distinctly late question admittedly, but why are Arab states such as Oman, Yemen, Dubai and the UAE classified as minor states, rather than being lumped with Saudi Arabia? The Arab states have much more in common with their larger neighbour than with other miscellaneous minor countries throughout the world?
I have SERIOUS issues with this Civ list.
1) The UK is a member of the EU. I know that it was excluded on the grounds of it being involved in the Iraq war indicating it has "its own foreign policy" - as if the other 26 countries don't (surely we should be judging by the actual powers that each country has rather than the powers they use). ANY of the EU countries (aside from countries like Sweden and Ireland which are militarily neutral) could have done the same thing. Indeed, 15 of the current 27 members of the EU were members of the "coalition of the willing" and 3 of these contributed troops to the invasion itself. If you go by the 2003 membership of the EU then 6 of the the (I think) 15 members were in the coalition and even with that membership the UK wasn't the only EU country involved in the invasion.
Basically, it's an arbitrary decision to remove it - all of the countries have their own foreign policy as well as, to some extent, the organisation itself (for instance, though the commission recognises the independence of Kosovo about 1/3 of the member states do not and the response to the Georgia war last year also varied significantly among the countries). The EU's involvement in the Iran nuclear talks was through France, Germany and UK - not the EU itself.
In addition national foreign relations affect the relations of the EU itself far more than the other way around - China's relationship with the EU soured slightly for a while when Sarkozy met the Dalai Lama, Iran started making anti-EU speeches when the UK (not the EU itself) expelled Iranian diplomats recently.
Long story short, there's nothing exceptional about the UK in terms of actual powers with regards to the EU. Most of the media is incredibly europhobic and a result a lot of British people are too (to an extreme that you don't find even in the other more eurosceptic EU countries like Sweden or Denmark) but the UK isn't really a special case in any way in terms of real powers. Nor is it necessarily ideologically hugely distinct as federalism isn't really that big a force in the EU any more.
2) The EU is not a country - I realise that it's probably too much like a country now to just neglect it and include the major EU countries on their own but it's hardly a United States of Europe at the moment. I suspect that even if you exclude the UK from the EU on this map that the EU will end up ludicrously overpowered. As it would be if you looked at its real world GDP, military strength etc. (even Olympic medals) and imagined it was one country. I suspect that you'll have to alter the world map a lot to get it so that the EU isn't much more powerful than the USA, China, India or Russia.
3) Minor states and neutral states.
a) The Serbs invaded Croatia, one of the places where they invaded was a UNESCO world heritage site and another one of the places is still in ruins fifteen years later, about twenty years ago and only stopped attacking Croatia fifteen years ago - there was ethnic cleansing on both sides. The general (also war criminal, incidentally) Ante Gotovina is hero worshipped there because of his victories against the Serb Krajinka and the Republic Sprska, despite his dubious methods. You can get a bus to any country in the former Yugoslavia except Serbia, even to FYR Macedonia which would require driving through Serbia. Not to labour the point, but I don't think it's appropriate to lump them together.
b) Croatia will join the EU next year or the year after, provided it can resolve a border dispute with Slovenia. Tajikistan won't (though kudos for fitting it on the map).
c) Iceland is hardly similar to Libya, they shouldn't be in the same Civ.
d) Switzerland has quite extensive ties to the EU - it's de facto part of the EEA (it has bilateral treaties that approximate it) and it's part of the Schengen passport region. Okay, it IS neutral but its diplomatic and economic ties are quite different to those of Costa Rica or Turkmenistan.
e) In Switzerland a citizen can call a referendum on something if he or she gets enough signatories - it is probably the most democratic country in the world by a long margin. In Turkmenistan opposition politicians are lobotomised on a semi-regular basis. What civics should this civ have?
4) Norway. Norway is more deeply involved in EU projects than some actual EU states - it's part of the Schengen region, it's involved in the EU battlegroups, the WEU etc. It's a bit of a case of a rock and a hard place as giving it its own civ is pretty inaccurate but so is lumping it in with the EU. I think it might be better to make an EFTA civ and put it in permanent alliance with the EU civ.
1) Libya is not a minor state, at least not in the African sphere. Gadaffi actually has a lot of weight in the African Union - he's called for a United States of Africa (despite it clearly not being the time for that, if there ever is a time for it) and the other heads of state aren't actually just ignoring him. Which suggests real power.
2) Sudan may split into two states in 2011 (South Sudan has home rule and can vote for independence in 2011) - it might be difficult to portray this without adding a South Sudan civ as a vassal.
3) Nigeria - I'm not sure that putting Liberia and Sierra Leone in the same civ is a good idea. For similar reasons to why I don't think Croatia and Serbia should be in the same civ - namely, recent wars.
4) I'm a bit anxious about the idea of shoving DR Congo and Angola in the same civ (particularly if it's called Angola). Also, isn't DR Congo in civil war atm?
1) It seems odd to have the Gulf states in minor states rather than just lumping them in with Saudi Arabia and calling them "Arabian states". I realise they're not a monolithic block but surely Yemen, Brunei etc have more in common with Saudi Arabia than with Iceland, Singapore or Madagascar?
2) How are you going to get Taiwan's diplomacy to work? It's not an internationally recognised country as the PRC claims sovereignty over it.
3) Syria's got troops in Lebanon. That'll be pretty hard to represent even if Lebanon wasn't in the "minor states" civ.
I also think that minor states and failed states (to a lesser extent neutral states too) are bad ideas.
Firstly, there's no connection between these states - it'd be better to lump together nearby states (provided that they aren't at war with each other of course) than to give a random list of places scattered across the world a civ.
Secondly, the divisions seem arbitrary. Why are Libya, Singapore or UAE deemed minor states for instance? Why is Turkmenistan a neutral state rather than a failed state (it's no more or less a failed state than Uzbekistan imo)? You could call it either. Why aren't DR Congo or DPRK failed states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state)? Why is Lebanon a minor state whereas Palestine has its own civ? South America'd be a bit of a mess given this.
Thirdly, if you played well enough you could probably make the minor/failed states civ a significant player given the game mechanics of Civ IV. Or you can play as the neutral states and not be neutral. Oxymoron, anyone?
Fourthly, this map ignores unrecognised countries (except for Palestine and Taiwan). Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria or the more famous South Ossetia and Abhkazia aren't on the map. In the case of Nagorno-Karabakh or Transnistria not all of the countries involved are even on the map (there's no Armenia and no Moldova). The Tamil state doesn't exist any more and would be impossible to portray without quadrupling the size of the world map so that's okay but Somaliland isn't on this map either, even though there's definitely room on most world maps for it. Given that these are actually potentially quite significant (as the events of last year show) I think there's a bit of an oversight here.
Apologies for length and any unintentional rudeness.
EDIT: Another Europe one. Northern Ireland can't be represented at all, even though it's been quite significant over the last thirty years or so...
Ok, sorry I have limited time and I didn't get to read through your entire post, but for now, the civ list is final. This list will go unchanged until at least the beta comes out. Then we might fiddle with it for balancing issues and such, and we might be able to then take in some of your ideas that you posted into mind. For now, we just don't have the time/manpower to totally redefine our map and such.
I know we are having problems with the DLL, and I came up with a solution to minimize the countries and still keep this going correctly. We have argued and whatever over what should and should not be in the game...but this is perfect. It represents 48 civs (of which there IS a working DLL). Now...it breaks up Europe a little bit, but with defensive pacts - it works just the same as it would in real life while giving sovereignty to the "custom" players in the world. There isn't a better solution proposed yet AND this allows us to get moving and get everything working with MINIMAL modding needed since there already exists a 48 civ DLL. See the list below. I just called them the names I called them...you can think of whatever different if you'd like. The world's small islands can be split up into whoever really has control over them, etc. (Picture of the map to come soon...)
1 Latin American
3 N Africa
3 African Unions (East, West, central)
1 African Union (AU)
6 Middle East
3 SW Asia
3 Central Asia
2 SE Asia
4 East Asia
1 Pacific realm
1 Minor States
1 Neutral States
1 Failed States
Usa: 1 - panama - guatemala - qatar
Latin america states: 1
UK - trinidad and tobago - barbados - jamaica - belize
european union: 1
N Africa: 3
Africa East/Central/West Unions: 3 (Total)
African Union: 1
Middle East: 6
saudi arabia - yemen
central asia: 3
CACO: tajikistan - kazakhstan - Kyrgyzstan -
Turkmenistan - uzbekistan
West/South Asia: 3
SouthEast Asia: 2
East Asia: 4
Pacific realm: 1
australia - new zealand
minor states: 1
neutral states: 1
United arab emirates
Failed States: 1
Central African Republic
Iraq (US involvment)
afghanistan (US involment)
Separate names with a comma.