PostEpochalypse

[Erebras]

I adapted Alpha Centauri icons for this mod.

 

[Erebras]

So, brainstorming and Wikipedia-ing about politics has me classifying the mods governments thusly:
FREE MARKET = standard trade bonus
CENTRAL PLANNING = communal corruption
UNITARY STATE = high draft rate, military police, increased corruption
REPRESENTATION = less corruption

Thus comes several permutations of these four, with titles:
AUTHORITARIAN STATE (free-market state) = military police, problematic corruption
TOTALITARIAN STATE (planned state) = military police, communal corruption
FEDERAL REPUBLIC (free-market representation) = trade bonus, nuisance corruption
SOCIALIST REPUBLIC (planned representation) = communal corruption, more unit support instead of less corruption

And CivEdit's options for government give way to these "special" situations:
COLLECTIVE (free market pluralism) = standard tile penalty, standard trade bonus, minimal corruption, high war weariness, no unit support from cities and metros, forced resettlement, one military police, assimilate as per Democracy
DICTATORSHIP = rampant corruption, standard tile penalty, no war weariness, high military police, unit support as Feudalism

The fascist state is now nothing more than a unitary state mobilized for war, since fascism historically could or did not exist outside of a war footing. (That is, the ultranationalist fervor would necessarily not remain contained within a nation's borders exhibiting such an outlook -- either the government or the people would clamor for territorial expansion or the extermination of their national enemies -- real, imagined, or historical.)

In a soft science-fiction mod, the factions are all naturally xenophobic -- a city composed of talking apes, cyborgs, mutants, and human survivalists are just not going to get along well enough to generate culture for the city until a group gets the upper hand. Only in a perfect transcendental utopia/eudaimonia will the xenophobic aspect be removed.

 

[Gray Wolf]

Any suggestions what resources for this mod would entail?

Here is a link to some rare resources that are important for high tech devices.
Rare Resources

Some of the resources are deep in the earth's crust, but after an apocalypse maybe they become more abundant. And maybe you could make up your own element as one that became discovered after the apocalypse.

This mod sounds like it will be fun.

 

[Erebras]

Excellent link, Gray Wolf; thanks. Technology metals sounds like a nice resource to add.

 

[Gray Wolf]

In a soft science-fiction mod, the factions are all naturally xenophobic -- a city composed of talking apes, cyborgs, mutants, and human survivalists are just not going to get along well ...

That's funny. And very true.

And I'm thinking you should make the factions fight each other more frequently and be less likely to trade with one another. Possibly put resources that X faction needs in close proximity to a Y faction city.

 

[Gray Wolf]

TOTALITARIAN STATE (planned state) = military police, communal corruption

I always thought that crime and corruption was higher in a free society than in a communist or socialist society because there is less stability and balance. And it seems like corruption within a totalitarian government would be virtually nil due to fear...

 

[Erebras]

Certainly, we all have our own personal opinions about governmental structures.

Spoiler :

I'm currently on temporary assignment in Humboldt county, California, surrounded by liberal-atheist-democrats...<ahem!>... I mean, "progressive intellectuals". Quite frankly, I can't wrap my head around their fantastical view of reality, but if their future for our nation involves the smelly, 22-year-old bums and their late-middle-age counterparts constantly sparechanging me and the hapless denizens of this northern California region, they can keep their 1960s-era Communist wet dreams away from the rest of America that wishes to remain productive and chemically-independent.

But the experience is revealing, that we all have different views of what is and what is not, so permit me to present a few key ideas and working hypotheses that carry over into the scenario (and not just this one, since CivSpecific has something like it, also).

1. Vanilla-CIV Democracy with its zero corruption is pure fantasy. No such state of affairs has ever existed, or ever will.
2. Federalism -- big government -- reaches a point of diminishing returns as a country gets bigger. This is why the United States is ruled by an elite completely out of touch with its citizens, beyond its economic power base of lobbyists and campaign donors. Abraham Lincoln put the final chokehold on the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, but the only way to make the republic work the way it was intended to is to return power to the states instead of having a central government dictate in blind and absolute terms what everyone in the country will do until the inevitable lawsuits overturn their shortsighted attempts at legislation.
3. Socialism and Communism as ideologies sound good, too, but like Democracy, they, too, are pure fantasy. Nations can call themselves socialist republics or communist republics, but in practice they are totalitarian police states of varying degrees of cruelty and oppression, and one need not be a brainwashed capitalist pig to realize that. Does Communism work? I wouldn't know. I've never seen one in practice. I've heard tell of Eastern Europeans standing in queues to get socks or toilet paper, and people starving in Russia because a minister miscalculated how much grain to grow that year.
4. There is corruption and waste in a free society, but there is also a drive to achieve with personal ambitions to pursue, and governmental structures take their cut of the action, but overall, citizens are free to prosper and grow. Less-free societies might achieve, too, but bureaucratic ineptitude -- a hallmark of planned economies, deservedly or not -- produces waste, sometimes lots of it. In Communism produces relatively low corruption equally distributed among all cities, which I think misrepresents the actuality of central planning, but at least it's not utopianesque.
5. Utopia -- to "immanentize the eschaton" as Wikipedia puts it -- in my opinion is unachievable on a grand scale, but people in misery dare to believe, which is why Communist or fundamentalist regimes take hold in certain nations, and the well-meaning visionaries and citizens wake up one day to find themselves prisoners of their own device. But I think it could work on a small scale, if rulers were chosen by merit, citizens saw the sanity of pooling resources instead of duplicating efforts, and personal accountability and "a-man's-word-is-his-bond" returned to the social consciousness.

 

[Erebras]

I always thought that crime and corruption was higher in a free society than in a communist or socialist society because there is less stability and balance. And it seems like corruption within a totalitarian government would be virtually nil due to fear...

Ignoring the civil rights marches, love-ins, and anti-Vietnam-War rallies of the mid-20th-century, what makes a free society stable and balanced compared to the others is the presence of a free press vs propaganda machine, right to assemble/protest vs disappearing in the night, freedom of religion vs state religion/state atheism, freedom to join Ku Klux Klan/Black Panthers vs civil rights legislation, and so forth. It's not that there isn't an unstable element in the free society, but it's more than balanced by societal norms & pressures and the rule of law to keep it in check.

In game terms, corruption would not be virtually nil in and of itself. Fear only goes so far. However, the authoritarian and totalitarian forms can have more police units than the hippies and treehuggers do. And policeman specialists can further put a lid on corruption, as in the default game, and this is consistent with police state thinking -- some segment of the population which would otherwise be productive members of society needs to help keep the proletariat working and productive.

This is kind of the rationale for the City Hall improvement in CivSpecific. It produces two unhappy citizens, but its benefits outweigh the citizen mood drawback, especially in a republic with access to many different types of luxuries or willing to spend a portion of its GNP on entertainment, leisure, recreation and distractions.

 

[Balthasar]

1. Vanilla-CIV Democracy with its zero corruption is pure fantasy. No such state of affairs has ever existed, or ever will.

True, but we haven't found many non-democratic societies with less corruption. Maybe the Hawaiian Monarchy.

2. Federalism -- big government -- reaches a point of diminishing returns as a country gets bigger. This is why the United States is ruled by an elite completely out of touch with its citizens, beyond its economic power base of lobbyists and campaign donors. Abraham Lincoln put the final chokehold on the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights, but the only way to make the republic work the way it was intended to is to return power to the states instead of having a central government dictate in blind and absolute terms what everyone in the country will do until the inevitable lawsuits overturn their shortsighted attempts at legislation.

Intellectual argument:

Spoiler :

Do you remember the name John Hanson? Nobody does. He was the first President of the United States of America after the ratification of the Articles of Confederation in 1781. The Articles, which featured a weak central government, got into trouble from the start, unable to enforce agreements between the states, or to execute a coherent foreign policy. Following the war, Britain took full advantage of the loosely organized confederation, refusing to remove troops from US soil, and made separate agreements with the states, which the weak executive (to the extent it existed) was powerless to override.

From the beginning, there were Federalists, who believed in a strong central government, and Anti-Federalists, who believed in a government more like that described in the AoC. The Constitution of 1789 was actually a compromise between the two factions, and established a system that virtually assured that each faction would persist in the new republic - so much so, that each is very much represented in our political discourse to this day.

The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) were fashioned to appease the Anti-Federalists, though they were ultimately written and passed by a 1st congress dominated by Federalist politicians. James Madison, a Federalist who had come to accept the idea of a Bill of Rights after many debates with Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry in the Virginia assembly, initially proposed 39 amendments, which were whittled down to twelve, some of which were restatements of articles from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Amendments 3-12 were ratified by the states, the second proposed amendment was ratified 209 years later as the 27th Amendment, and the first, which was a formula for the make-up of the house of Representatives, remains unratified.

Representatives Tucker of South Carolina and Gerry of Massachusetts separately introduced Amendments that would have incorporated the language of Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated." (emphasis added). Madison objected, stating that "it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the Constitution descended to recount every minutia."

Indeed the issue had been discussed ever since the Necessary and Proper clause was inserted into the Constitution at Article 1, section 8, clause 18: "The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Patrick Henry had argued that the clause would allow limitless federal power that would menace individual liberty. Madison argued in the Federalist Papers (No. 44) that without the clause, the Constitution was a "dead letter".

In the end, the word "expressly" was left out of the tenth amendment, and the courts have since rejected most tenth amendment claims, save for those in which the law sought to compel the states to enforce federal law. Again, each side has retained its prerogatives: the states can, for instance, establish legal marijuana dispensaries, but the feds can also raid them for violating federal law. I won't bother discuss the commerce clause, because the many ways in which it is used to extend jurisdiction into the states are too many to enumerate. As the Supreme Court said in United States v. Sprague (1931), the 10th amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified." Still, the argument rages on.

Lincoln actually did little to advance or influence the argument, save for preserving the Union. The Constitution of the Confederate States of America did little to advance the argument, either. It varied little from the US Constitution as amended at the time. It preserved the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Commerce Clause, and never used the word 'expressly'. It didn't grant its constituent states the right to nullify or secede. The rights it did grant to the states kept the army of the south poorly equipped and ineffectively supported, just as state sovereignty had hindered the Continental army a generation-and-a-half earlier.

Practical argument:

The concept of "States Rights" would be hard to do in the Civ3 universe, where the player-president/dictator/King has absolute power over the fates of his 'citizens'. You might set up a scenario in which an alliance of individual states faces a monolithic (communist? Union?) attacker.

Or you could do a 'show the worst' technique like Orwell. You set up an interesting scenario premise:

. . big government -- reaches a point of diminishing returns as a country gets bigger. The United States is ruled by an elite completely out of touch with its citizens, beyond its economic power base of lobbyists and campaign donors.

Now, that's got possibilities.

 

[Erebras]

Thanks, Balthasar. I failed to point out that despite the ruling elite being clueless and self-serving, the United States continues to carry on with business as usual despite it. I liken it to hospital departments in which I have worked, where even in the absence of a charge nurse or director, work continues to be done and routines carried out. On a more global scale, the United States can carry on even in the presence of an inept government because of the huge body of laws and legislation that serves to keep things running. If the United States were to depend solely on the whims and judgment of its "representatives" we today would be speaking pidgin-Mandarin while sending our livelihoods overseas to our Chinese overlords. May still happen, Balthasar, someday, but I maintain and contend to the American "purists" (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, mostly) who bemoan the increase in Spanish-speaking citizens and globalization efforts that:
It is inevitable that sooner or later the United States will eventually become Los Estados Unidos -- it's simply a matter of mathematics and social evolution -- but The United States will remain and persist, not become some extension of Central America or South America. It is our values and heritage -- our republicanism and rule of law -- that makes us American. Our culture may be strongly influenced by ethnicity, but America is big enough to assimilate what it likes and discard the rest. That is why shar&#299;&#703;ah law (a current cause for alarm) will never supplant American civil codes. It's a perpetual safeguard of our liberty. If the republic fails, the US will cease to exist...but not until.

 

[Erebras]

I may pose this question in the forums if I fail to get a response, but does anyone in the modding community know if the game will work fine if units are not able to fortify, but can sentry, instead?

My scouts in CivSpecific cannot fortify, and I've suffered no crashes, but I also eliminated expansionist tribes, so it may be that the AI merely chooses not to train scouts.

I'm thinking for this Post-Epochalypse mod of giving vehicles hit point bonuses, slightly weaker defensive values compared to comparably-armed infantry, and an inability to fortify in exchange for mobility and the ability to withdraw.

Does anyone know for certain that not checking the Fortify action in the unit editor will cause the AI to behave strangely?

 

[Balthasar]

If the United States were to depend solely on the whims and judgment of its "representatives" we today would be speaking pidgin-Mandarin while sending our livelihoods overseas to our Chinese overlords. "

In the 80's they said that about the Japanese, in the 70's they said that about the Arabs. It's a perennial.

It is inevitable that sooner or later the United States will eventually become Los Estados Unidos

Perhaps California and Texas will see majority hispanic populations, but after that it drops off substantially. Florida has the third largest hispanic population - 4.5 million - but they make up only 23.2% of the state's population. So the Union will remain happily multi-ethnic. The US has absorbed larger immigrant waves easily.

 

[Erebras]

Are you accounting for birth rates, Balthasar? 'Tis true that there have been historical "waves" of Irish, Polish, Italian, and other immigrants to this nation, but the Latinos are different in several key ways. Firstly, earlier immigrants tended to assimilate, even to the point of forbidding their children and grandchildren from speaking the "mother tongue" out of fear of hostility and discrimination. Secondly, European immigrants looked like WASPs, and by American traditions harkening back to the slave trade, one needed to merely look and act white to be white, and all others must be judged by the color of their skin. Thirdly, Latino immigrants don't look like WASPs, and they don't integrate/assimilate: they straddle both cultures, preserving their own heritage, and contributing that heritage to American culture (food, pop music).

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/05/17/explaining-why-minority-births-now-outnumber-white-births/

I am tending to generalize in this posting, I recognize this, and I'm not ignoring cultural contributions of polka, pizza parlors, and soul music into the American identity. But I can count many second- and third- generation immigrants who can barely speak the language of their forebears, and not so with Spanish speakers. Of the latter quite a few spoke Spanglish more easily than Spanish, and one surprisingly spoke fluent (Puerto Rican) Spanish but was unable to read and write it (I say surprisingly, because Spanish is spelled almost exactly like it sounds; the accent marks might mess someone up, but the vowels never will.) I use this as an illustration of what I was getting at earlier.

 

[Erebras]

http://www.nma.org/index.php/minerals-publications/40-common-minerals-and-their-uses is an interesting page put out by the National Mining Association. Not that I want to put forty mineral elements into the mod, but perhaps I'll condense the list into workable categories.

I know for certain from making the unit list that I'll need resources for the first era (Subsistence): junkyards (for raw materials: gleanings), armories (for military weaponry), weapon caches (for firearms), refineries (strategic oil stockpiles), rare earth (for hi-tech units and improvements), and many default strategic resources (oil, metals, minerals). Despite the William Devane commercials, I believe I'll have future society abandon the gold standard currency-wise, but Gold will remain a resource for hi-tech stuff and jewelry markets.

No fur trade: bonus food resource, instead, since large domesticated animals have gone extinct.

Drug trade: crops of cannabis, tobacco, opium; pharmaceuticals (subsumes meth and temazepam), some genetically engineered stuff or electronic-inducers with proper advances. These drugs are luxuries, but work better with improvements. (Banks and marketplaces don't increase luxuries.) These same improvements will greatly increase pollution and/or corruption.
(It's likely I'll add improvements to take advantage of the remaining non-drug "luxuries", such as wine, meat, pets, or textiles). Admittedly there will be fewer luxuries in the mod: I cannot envision a resurgence of ivory, fur coats, silk pajamas, and so forth on this side of the Synthetic Fibers spectrum. Meat may be an odd choice, at first blush, but postulating a mostly-vegetarian/bushmeat/roadkill diet for future society, once Genetic Engineering is achieved, ranching and reintroduction of food species for not-quite-mass-consumption would be conceivable, and a society benefits in the same way the lower classes in ages past bemoaned their black bread and peas while their betters ate roast peacock and white bread...with butter, no less!

 

[Balthasar]

Are you accounting for birth rates, Balthasar?

Yes, I am. And I had prepared a long post to prove it when I realized: it doesn't matter. C'mon, we're all mutts anyway. Our language continues to change, and is changing right now for reasons unrelated to ethnicity - google 'great lakes dialect' if you don't believe me. If some salsa gets into the American stew, it just might improve the taste, which used to be pretty bland. Just ask Lucy and Ricky Ricardo.

 

[Erebras]

I always thought that crime and corruption was higher in a free society than in a communist or socialist society ...

I've thought of another point in response to this. It's my original rationale for why I've set them up like this, but I neglected to say it (or, perhaps, I said it in a different way). By "free society" is meant in PostEpoch-terms is that it has a free market, not a centrally planned economy. But "free society" in non-mod terms could mean several things at once, mostly in terms of civil rights and personal freedoms. Perhaps the most telling is the freedom to move about the nation instead of going through constant checkpoints ("Your papers, please") or freedom to attend a center of higher learning and become a professional out of personal goal, rather than being assigned a career by the state due to quotas, rather than qualifications. (Not sure if that is historically correct, but the example is valid as a for instance to contrast a free society.)

As this relates to the mod, Gray Wolf, is that a free-market liberal republic would have relatively low corruption because the representative nature of the government would hold the government accountable for its actions. This is not to say one could ring the doorbell of the Prime Minister or Lord Protector's residence, submit a complaint, and <poof!> the problem goes away. No. But citizens can band together -- organized into trade unions, professional organizations, or some other logical body or entity -- and file class-action lawsuits, pass referendums, or at its most basic, march in parades or stage protests, and with the aid of a sympathetic news media or meddling United Nations subcommittee, get their points across. If it gets bad enough, troublemakers get ousted, either by being voted out of office, or forced resignations, or impeachment proceedings. A politician not taken serious by his constituency is doomed.

In a non-free society, it's a double whammy. Che Guevara's "el hombre nuevo" (New Man) policies serve to illustrate that without any lucrative incentives, people are not productive or driven to excel, or even to succeed. So the first part is basically, "If the State gives it to you, and you can get away with it, then do the bare minimum." Slaves learned to do just enough to avoid the lash, and American welfare recipients have learned to work the system, sometimes in jaw-dropping ways. (I should have said "manipulate the system"; welfare recipients don't "work the system" -- they don't work.) The second part of the double whammy is the State, itself. With the power to eliminate political rivals and dissidents, squelch free speech and independent journalism, and break up public protests with soldiers, the government is accountable to no one but themselves. Corruption and waste would be horrific, because whoever complained would disappear, and public image would replace public outcry. And who would gauge the corruption and waste? Anyone who tried would be instantly denounced and discredited, if they even had access to that kind of information in the first place, which they wouldn't in a tight-lipped, secretive, and paranoid bureaucracy like those found in unitary states.

So, in a nutshell, corruption would be high in a non-democratic nation, but gives them the benefit of a doubt by allowing it to be Communal corruption (which, as I understand it, is fairly low.) Democratic forms of government suffer less corruption and benefit from increased trade, and the bigger the cities, the better. This is in line with what is commonly seen in today's world. Europeans en masse will kill each other in the streets over a soccer game, but by and large no one is storming the Bastille in Paris or staging Jacobite risings against Prime Minister Cameron. Those glory days are long past.

 

[Gray Wolf]

Erebras,

I was focused on crime earlier. So I should have only mentioned crime. I basically meant that there is more crime in a free capitalistic society. In America for example, there is a major dichotomy between the rich and the poor. And a lot of unfairness. For example, how can it be fair for Tiger Woods to make 65 million dollars a year and for another man to dig ditches all year and barely be able to feed and take care of his family?

Anyway, the class struggles and unfairness leads to higher crime. Capitalism encourages theft because capitalism is all about greed. There's more money and temptation to swindle or steal from someone in a free market society.

if it gets bad enough, troublemakers get ousted, either by being voted out of office, or forced resignations, or impeachment proceedings. A politician not taken serious by his constituency is doomed.

But you are right. We have 3 branches of government to keep politicians in check. And the power of the press and elections, etc. So I agree that government corruption is probably less in a capitalistic society.

However, in a libertarian government, there would be less laws and more corruption by corporations and individuals. This is why the Koch brothers support libertarianism and the tea party. They don't want any regulations over their factories and they want to pay as little taxes as possible.

Anyway, if you have a government with more laws, then the government is bigger, and it has more Bureaucracy, and, therefore, more chances for government corruption. Like when the army 'loses' a truck load of billions of dollars worth of gold. Three different times! And no one seems to care enough to find out why.

And all of the bailouts...is basically corporate welfare and corruption. Henry Paulson is as corrupt as you can get. He's a big #@# thief who deserves to be thrown in prison for life. I cannot stand people like him.

So basically I'm agreeing with you. I just think that we have to be more clear about what kind of corruption we are talking about.
And for game purposes, I guess that would mean corruption by government officials. But some government types may need to spend extra gold fighting crime and corruption by individuals and corporations and not just within the government itself.

Anyway, I think you've defined your government types pretty well so far...

 

[Erebras]

I very quickly googled a statistic, but according to a UNODC global study in 2012, murder rates -- not a bad benchmark to describe crime, I suppose -- were high at 11-31 per 100,000 population in non-northern Africa, South America, and the Caribbean. The lowest rates at less than 2 per 100,000 included/consisted of non-eastern Europe, Australasia, and Polynesia. This is, of course, by region, not country. (Northern America was a little more than 4 per 100,000.)

Also, capitalism means "greed is good", but the rule of law keeps that in check, also...but it doesn't prevent loss...when Bernie made off with billions of dollars, it's not like he returned the money back to the fraud "victims" (difficult to think of stockbrokers as victims, any more than I think of pedophiles as sick people with an illness).

I ran across a reference to "The Four Asian Tigers" or "Asian Dragons" and what they had in common for their booming economies was a very free market. Contrast that with the People's Republic of China having to attempt to create an artificial middle class because their planned economy is lackluster by comparison.

And corruption and waste isn't just governmental inefficiency and embezzlement. I recall a shopkeeper in northern Mexico going about her business. A cop walks in, browses for his household goods, and exits the place without paying a single peso after he was done "shopping." The shopkeeper just shrugged it off as the price of doing business there. If that kind of loss of profit margin is going on on a small scale, imagine how much worse it is as you get higher and higher up the food chain. I suppose outsourcing megacorporations with standing armies of lawyers can prevent extortion of that sort, but it's not difficult to understand why Mexico is not nearly as great as it could be as the crossroads of the Americas/Oceans.

 

[Erebras]

I am going to release a fairly normal version of this mod before I start tweaking it with talking apes and Flash Gordon rejects. Here is the working list of the 31 civs:
MISR (Egypt)
BRITAIN (United Kingdom)
EAST AMERICA (New England, Southern US, Ontario, Quebec )
WEST AMERICA (includes Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia)
(southeast) EUROPA (The Balkans)
AUSTRALIA (Oceania)
FRANCE
DEUTSCHLAND (Germany)
NEDERLAND (Netherlands)
NORDEN (Scandinavia)
ESPANA (Spain)
MEXICO
BRASIL
ARGENTINA
ELLADA (Greece)
ITALIA
ROSSIYA (Russia)
MASHRIQ (Levant)
IRAQ
ARABIYAH (Arabs)
HUABEI (Northern China, Mongolia)
HUANAN (Southern China, Indochina)
BHARATA (India)
HANGUK (Korea)
NIPPON (Japan)
TURKIYE (Turkey, Anatolia)
ITYOPPYA (Ethiopia)
MZANSI (South Africa)
NIGERIA
IRAN
NUSANTARA (Indonesia, coastal Indochina)

City names will be each region's top thirty or so megacities, conurbations, and county or provincial capitals.

You can see from the list that it's modeled after the vanilla 31 original civs, but the more "extinct" tribes are being repurposed for more contemporary nations. Inca and Maya are now Brazil and Argentina, Iroquois are now Americans, and Africa and southeast Asia are given a bit more representation. Also gone are the Celts, the Portuguese, Byzantium, the Hittites, and ancient Sumer. Civs were chosen based on population and relative size -- conceivable factors for surviving nuclear warfare and stuff -- but not solely on this: there is no Monaco or Bangladesh, despite their dense populations and wealth, because they are tiny compared to the regions represented by the other civs.

I wanted Canada and the Berbers to be in the mod, but I had to draw the line somewhere. No one's going to be able to play with more than a dozen or so, anyhow, right?

I'm open to comments or suggestions. And please, no one tell me the Celts need to be in the mod. Remember, God made alcohol to keep the Irish from taking over the world.

 

[Erebras]

(This post duplicated the previous post, for some reason.)