Discussion in 'CivBE - General Discussions' started by Homusubi, Nov 10, 2014.
and in 1500 there were probably ten to twenty times as many independent countries (at least)
Anyone else here still trying to figure out what symmetry has to do with OP's concept of China and Japan being united politically?
The PAC has perfect radial symmetry, but only when it's mouth is closed. Inky, Pinky, Blinky and Clyde however, posses lateral symmetry at all times.
THAT was freaking funny.
Anyone else just figure the folks at Firaxis said, "hey let's mash up the regions in the world so that all the names are new but everyone is represented?"
And then move the hell on with life?
THIS THIS THIS
Plus someone earlier pointed out that in their Backstory video on Youtube. Japan is definitely LEFT OUT and South Korea was vaguely referenced as being left out.
Its clear that them, and Northern Europe and I believe the UK are going to be part of future expansions. Also I believe the African Union is rather vague and Parts of the MidEast are left out. So that leaves a definite 3 confederations and a possible 6.
The manual says that South Korea and Japan cast aside their differences to work within the framework of the Pact. So yeah, they are pretty much members though they could always break away and be an expansion Sponser.
As for the Asian countries working together...yeah, it is pretty crazy. People underestimate just how much these guys HATE each other. It is a whole other level than Europe, etc.
Actually, I'd say it's about the same level as in Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries, after nationalism developed (nationalism was born in Europe, remember). The only difference is, Europeans grew out of it. Though if you go to the comments section of any Youtube video about the EU or European history, you'll see they probably haven't grown out of it as much as you think.
What some of them felt for Germany is probably close. But the difference is the hatred of the people, especially people with 'mixed' heritage. This is probably because you can see the difference in Asian people, while someone of mixed Euro heritage could look exactly the same as a 'pureblood'.
The fact that none of the city names are Japanese could suggest that Japan was fully Sinicised at gunpoint by the PAC.
Then again, you might be right. A Japan-Taiwan coalition would at least be possible. Even a Japan-South Korea coalition might work, but only out of necessity due to China (and even then it would be extremely uneasy, what with Zaitokukai running rampant in Japan)
EDIT: I just saw that world map. My guess, PAC or no PAC, is that Japan didn't get hit as hard by climate change as people think. However, it would end up with an even bigger budget deficit than it does today, as it would need to build MASSIVE dams in order to turn Tokyo Bay and the Seto Sea (and possibly Nagoya Bay) into lakes, thus saving the Kanto and Kansai metropolitan areas from flooding. The Seto Sea in particular doesn't require much sea-wall in order to cut Osaka off from rising sea levels. This deficit would then mean that Japan needs to do something extremely risky in order to prevent total economic collapse. Space travel, for example. There! Japan DLC backstory in 5 minutes!
FURTHER EDIT: Just looked at a map of what would be underwater after a 60-metre (i.e. semi-apocalyptic) sea level rise. Japan's populated areas would be submerged, but the vast majority of the country would be safe. This means that building enough dams to save Osaka, at least, would be easy, as most of Awaji-shima would remain above the water.
Isn't the game playing 600 years in the future?
If it not were not for the history books, who would guessed 735 years ago the Mongols created the biggest empire in human history, considering how completely irrelevant they are today? KHAAAAAAN!
I'm utterly convinced in 600 years China will be a protectorate of the Nigerian Kingdom, whose rulers trace back to line of princes that made their early fortune in something called the Internet? The official language will be of course Esperanto.
To add to Ryoga's point, ancient Greece before 455 BCE was originally sixty "nations" (each city-state having its own government), and spoke Attic, Dorian, Ionic, and Corinthian dialects of barely mutually understandable Greek--the Macedonians weren't even considered part of a "Greece" at all before Philip of Macedon. For those earlier in the thread who implied that division was the most common trend of history, why didn't those 60 city-states further split into 120 states, if what you assert is true?
The same is true of medieval Italy in Dante's time. If division is the most common trend, why hasn't Italy split into factions for the Lombards in the North and Tuscans and Venetians and Sicilians and so on? The Florentines and the Pisans were at each other's throats for 200 years of warfare, but they live happily side by side now.
If you go back further in time to pre-Roman Empire, Italy was divided into Etruscan and Umbran and Oscan and Alban and Latian factions, not even sharing a single language. Eventually, Rome kicks off the yoke of the Etruscan overlords and unifies the other Italian tribes forcibly under its legions, and in the space of a little over 200 years, it even assimilates their former enemies so they all speak Latin. The story of Rome as a whole is over 1000 years of general assimilation rather than general splintering--spread over most of Northern Africa, parts of the Middle East, all of Europe, and about a third of the British Isles. If anything, BE is too conservative linguistically--it assumes that most of the faction leaders are bilingual when it is much more likely that the number of languages in the future is reduced in number (which is the current trend in languages--many minority languages are going extinct as assimilation continues into larger political entities).
Historically, for good or bad, what makes unification happen has tended to be conquest. Two groups hate each other and have feuded for a gazillion years? They'll still be assimilated if one gains the upper hand over the other and conquers their enemy. Or, if they are evenly matched in military power, they will exhaust each other so much that some other nation will step in and assimilate both of them and force them to make peace, as was the case in Akkadia, the four breakaway nations of classical China before imperial unification, and so forth. A few generations of enforced pacifism is all it takes, in many cases. Will there still be some ethnic feuds that refuse to die out? Sure, but that may be the exception to the general trend.
I'll second the opinion of previous posters in this thread who point out that "alliance" may simply be a euphemism for "dominance," and that in the case of ethnic groups or nations who are *currently* hostile to each other, it is still quite plausible that in 200 years that hostility has ended after one group defeated and assimilated the other, or it has ended after a third party comes in, conquers both groups, and then has forced them to be nice to each other for 90 years. That's basically what Rome did to the Germanic tribes in the regions of modern France/Germany and to the Celts in Spain during the Republican period of Rome, after all. To argue that ethnic/political schism is more common than unification just doesn't strike me as historically true over the last 3,000 years, even if it might be true to some extent over the last 60 years.
Well the sponsors are set 200-300 years in the future.
(the ships take 300-400 years to get to the planet)
That being said, given that you have non-state sponsors (ARC), it is possible that Many of these are "multinational organizations" which can overlap
Because if modern day NATO sponsored a satellite, and so did the EU... lots of nations would be covered by both.
As such my list of sponsors incudes
GrecoPersian Empire (filling in that middle east spot)
Confederate States of Europe (filing in that Nordic/German/Britain spot)
Maritime Trade Authority (extranational group controlling port cities around the world including large parts of Japan, Panama Canal, Carribean)... leader would be Japanese, speak Spanish (the language of trade)
Society for Spiritual Development (would have 'monasteries'/'retreats'/'schools' world wide.)... leader Korean, speaks English (the language of the old empires)
Institute for Technological Transformation ('academies'/'labs'/'foundations' worldwide)... leader African, speaks Arabic
North American Treaty Organization (North American military alliance)... leader White Canadian, speaks English
Eighth Fire (worldwide rebel group.. supported by some states, tolerated by others fought by others)...leader Native American, speaks English/Russian/Chinese
Lunar Antarctic Consortium (companies that established/operated bases/extraction facilities on Moon, Antarctica, Mars... abandoning the colonies to other systems)
We still have nationalism thread in BE? How surprising
Japan and Korea were said by the lead designer to not be a part of PAC, since they're understandably weary of China who just nuked a bunch of countries (although the manual is inconsistent on this, I remember it mentioning Seoul in PAC's info)
Another inconsistentcy is Brasilia; the lead designer said that Brasilia is really only modern-day Brazil but in-game they're called the "Organization of South American States" and the leader speaks Spanish in addition to Portugese.
North Europe, the Middle East and the rest of East Asia seem like blatantly obvious regions to leave out so I'm expecting if there is an expansion to this that they'll be in it.
How can you trust anything in this game's manual?!
The People's Republic of China does not have de-jure claims to the island of Taiwan, since the (still existing)Republic of China never signed any treaty ceding lost territory to the PRC, let alone territory it currently occupies.
That said, I do think it likely that Taiwan would be in the PAC as a part of China. After all, there is no China but China (and Sun Yat Sen is its prophet...)
Polar ice caps melted. Climate change. Japan is wiped out.
(As reference the kirbdog post you replied to stated in 1940 there were 65 countries, today about 3x - which is roughly correct with the 180+ UN countries)
You can define country however you like so that you're right, but by any reasonable definition by either 14th century standards or modern standards (self control of currency, exertion of influence within its proclaimed borders, recognition as a sovereign state by other leading sovereign states, etc) - no, large no, there was not 10-20x of today's 180+ country count.
Nothing I say can convince you if you're unwilling to have facts sway you. But for anyone else, just google or visit a library and view 14-15th century world maps adjusted by modern historical hindsight (e.g. We know now where geopolitical entities were but a then published 14th century map from the Spanish for example would have very little knowledge of then Asian kingdoms/countries)
A picture is worth a thousand words. Do you see 1800+ recognized countries/kingdom/empires on a map of the 14th to 15th century world?
Do you have a link to such a map by any chance? I could only find maps of smaller regions.
I'm curious - How many countries would you say there were in North America is 1500?
Whether or not a state in Asia is recognised or known of by a state in Europe is irrelevant. Simply being recognised as a politically separate unit by a handful of neighbours is enough really to recognise something as a de facto political entity, regardless of where in the world it is.
And if we are looking at the 14/15th century, then there were as many states in the holy roman empire alone as there are in the world today, more or less.
Separate names with a comma.