Mattygerst
Prince
Sorry, I missed labeling Palestine. I labeled them as you suggested. And we don't need the unique art. But simply gathering it up would be nice so we can at least have something done ahead of time for a change.
Leaders
- Thread starter NikNaks
- Start date
Sorry, I missed labeling Palestine. I labeled them as you suggested. And we don't need the unique art. But simply gathering it up would be nice so we can at least have something done ahead of time for a change.
Mattygerst
Prince
Leaders...civs...player colors...traits (besides a future adjustment of spiritual) are all completed. So, we have all the XML done for all that - FINALLY.
With a little luck...the game should start up correctly now. I will test later on today/tomorrow and see if any errors come up, and then run it by the people that can help.
Next up: Decide what cities get what types of buildings (officiallly) in the map development thread. Work on the religions change to ideologies and implement into game. Then final work which would be units & tech tree adjustments to place into the mod.
With a little luck...the game should start up correctly now. I will test later on today/tomorrow and see if any errors come up, and then run it by the people that can help.
Next up: Decide what cities get what types of buildings (officiallly) in the map development thread. Work on the religions change to ideologies and implement into game. Then final work which would be units & tech tree adjustments to place into the mod.
I think the military-industrial complex is alone enough to give the U.S. the IND trait, at least it is slightly more accurate that IMP. Anyway, I thought we weren't supposed to take political sides in this mod? Saying the U.S. is IMP clearly a biased approach the U.S. foreign policy. Plus anyway, for the time that this mod takes place, the IMP trait is utterly useless, there is absolutely no need to build settlers, since the world is already pretty much settled. The IND trait on the other hand is slightly more useful, as it provides a 50% increase in wonder production, which seems to fit the U.S. very well. Actually, the entire argument about who is industrious, and who produces what doesn't actually make sense in accordance with he trait, which gives a boost to wonder production forges, nothing to do with factories or industrial complexes (that's ORG, which I think could work for the U.S. too).
Oh and plus, giving U.S. IMP, besides how incorrect it is, will make the game extremely unbalanced. Because then you have a massive production powerhouse of a country (America's lands and cities will have tons of hammers pouring in), that will have one of the largest military's in the world, and said military is involved in two wars, when you put that with AGG (free combat promotion) and IMP (Great General production is increased by 100%), by god how isn't America going to take over the world? (don't even bother factoring in the nukes, which America will have a ton of). IND will balance it out a little, so the most militarily dominate country in the world, won't get a massive list of bonuses towards it.
Sorry for continuing this debate, but the above realization just made me have to continue this.
cheesemijit
Prince
I think eventually we will need to change the traits to ones that fit the modern world, and maybe add some that RoM has, like Seafaring (extra navy Promotion and double ports, dockyards etc), Agricultural (plots with 4f get 1 more, double granary, etc), Espionage Active (had a better name) (+2 espionage points per city, double intelligence agency, prison, security agency).
As for america i don't know much about them to be biased and i think IMP is a bit overpowered, and IND does seem to fit as although their companies don't produce in the USA the actual country do produce the wonders of the modern world, even if they are mostly immigrants.
As for america i don't know much about them to be biased and i think IMP is a bit overpowered, and IND does seem to fit as although their companies don't produce in the USA the actual country do produce the wonders of the modern world, even if they are mostly immigrants.
idk why, in reality it should be NikNaks decision, since its his mod, but then again this mod is being made democratically, so we should all come to a decision on it, not just Matty's own personal opinion. Should we make a poll?
cheesemijit
Prince
it isnt everyone else and i think its fair to go his way for now. it isnt a major issue anyway (well it might be for americans).
This is why I think it is a major issue (not just how incorrect it is, but it is also a game balance issue)
ianinsane
Prince
I totally agree with Matty. All his points are totally right. USA should be AGG/IMP (as I have pointed out far earlier in this thread).
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Actually i think you got it wrong. Industries are very important in our economy. Silesia, Poznan, Warsaw and the Tri-City dominate Poland. Not to mention that we are rapidly modernizing our standards in well everything, since the fall of communism. Philosophical is kinda random. Spiritual doesn't make sense, unless Italy and Spain are Spiritual to. Poland is not much more religious than Italy or Spain is.
I suggest Pro/Ind.
Adhesive86
Warlord
Ok, well if you're Polish then i'll defer to you.
To be clear, I don't disagree re industry, my Polish girlfriend assures me of this, (congrats on your smoking hot ladies by the way), but the reason i was recommending philospohical was partly because it's bonuses are more use for a civ which is finding itself sandwiched between many more powerful civs. I also think Poland has a very rich and proud history of 'great people', so this bonus seemed reasonable. Like I say though, I totally see industrial, so if you would prefer to change this then I can agree with you.
KaiserElectric
Total Freakin Besties
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,461
So many major wars? To my knowledge, George Bush only started the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars, not the "so many major wars" you claim he started. Not to mention that the Iraqi and Afghanistan wars are nowhere near the status of major war. WWII was a major war, but the Iraqi conflicts almost certainly aren't.
Adhesive86
Warlord
Electric, this is an old argument i think and the decisions have already been made.
But Ianinsane i think is right that no other country has recently started as many or as large wars as America. Let's not be pedantic and argue about what is and is not a major war. The troops committed, time committed and amount spent in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf anything in MY lifetime. I don't know how old Ianinsane is, but I'm guessing he wasn't around for WW2.
America's military budget is extremly large, compared not only to other nations but also to other expenditure and GDP. Whilst the likes of Scandinavia are ensuring they have the world's best healthcare, USA spends its taxes on war tools. I'm not taking sides in any political sense, but this is just how it is. Military and world empire/control/influence is very important to the USA, in almost anyone's lifetime (post Pearl Harbour anyway).
The point is that almost everyone sees USA (note we are talking about national traits as opposed to leader traits) as aggressive and nearly as large a consensus is there for imperialist.
But Ianinsane i think is right that no other country has recently started as many or as large wars as America. Let's not be pedantic and argue about what is and is not a major war. The troops committed, time committed and amount spent in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf anything in MY lifetime. I don't know how old Ianinsane is, but I'm guessing he wasn't around for WW2.
America's military budget is extremly large, compared not only to other nations but also to other expenditure and GDP. Whilst the likes of Scandinavia are ensuring they have the world's best healthcare, USA spends its taxes on war tools. I'm not taking sides in any political sense, but this is just how it is. Military and world empire/control/influence is very important to the USA, in almost anyone's lifetime (post Pearl Harbour anyway).
The point is that almost everyone sees USA (note we are talking about national traits as opposed to leader traits) as aggressive and nearly as large a consensus is there for imperialist.
KaiserElectric
Total Freakin Besties
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,461
Yeah, I figured it was old. I'm just one of the few people out there who feel that Bush wasn't as bad as many people claim he was.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
I see where you are coming from, I honestly don't know if any of the traits fit except for Protective. (and even that Isn't accurate, we aren't afraid of being absorbed by Russian sphere of influence again, it's not going to happen any time soon. We just recently lived through the atrocities of Russia, and know what they are capable of, so we just squint our eyes and go running over to the big fish (USA, EU) complaining about Russian aggression whenever something like Georgia happens.)
As for the bold, If I marry a latin women here, imagine my children!
Polish - Latin mix!As for the bold, If I marry a latin women here, imagine my children!
...The creepiness of that smiley is not really intended... though its the best one we've got
Has this list been updated? Bush Jr. is already out of office, and I'm expecting that some of the names on the list will change as well. Another question: will the leader be the leader by title or in the case of more than one leader, the one with the most influence? For example, say there is a country that is a constitutional monarchy: UK. There is a monarchy, and a PM appointed by the majority party in Parliament. Would the leader be Queen Elizabeth II or Gordon Brown as of June 27th, 2007?
Similar threads
