Russians and Soviets

[RussiaWarMachin]

I think it's time to seperate the Russians and the Soviets into two seprate Civs. Here's why:

1: The Soviet Union was born when the Bolchevics overthrew the Tzars in a revolution, much like how the US was born by overthrowing the British Colonies.

2: The Soviets acomplished as much, if not more then the Empirial Russians.

3: It would make me happy.

 

[airrahul]

In this case, we could have Civs "transform" depending on government systems and such. Also, I think that if a Civ had great cultural accomplishments, was part of a separate cultural group, and was conquered by another power, there should always be the chance it might rise up against in the future. This could model such things from the disintegration of the USSR to Vietnam throwing off Chinese domination during the Tang dynasty after a millenia of occupation. However, this would all be contingent on a large enemy population that had its own strong culture and such. Sorry if I went off on a tangent there but I feel the ability of cultures and peoples to last longer than their nations is important to keep in mind and tied to the idea of nations transforming into different nations (Imperial Russia to USSR, Manchu China to PRC, Ottoman Empire to Turkey, etc.).

 

[Chieftess]

Probably not. It would be like splitting Rome and Italy, or Celts and Scotland/Ireland, or Babylon/Iraq, Persia/Iran, etc.

 

[one_man_assault]

I agree with the idea off a civ splitting off due to some type of non-compatability with the motherland. But A Russian and Soviet civ would be too far. I meen if we do that we would need to have almost 50 civs.

 

[airrahul]

Well how about Russia and Ukraine? Both are descended from Kievan Russia. Or perhaps one could look at the Romance language speaking countries (France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Romania, and parts of Switzerland along with little states like Monaco) that are the most direct remnants culturally and linguistically of the Roman Empire. To simulate things like this, such a splitting off potential would be nice to have. Russia and Soviet would be merely a name change that accompanies a revolution.

 

[Beloyar]

I might be happy, too, if France was still a monarchy and not a Republic. We can have two Frances: the old Royal France and the new Republic. Same thing for China, Greece/Byzantium, Celts/Scots/Irish, America North and South, Roman Empire/Republic/Papal States/Italy/Fascist/etc., etc. Like one_man_assault said, this could get out of hand.

Before PTW and C3C came out, I remember we tried to talk about new civs splitting from the motherland, like America split from England, but Firaxis didn't care.

Another possible new civ: the Slavs.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

1: The Soviet Union was born when the Bolchevics overthrew the Tzars in a revolution, much like how the US was born by overthrowing the British Colonies.

Things are not always that simple: Kronstand,28/2/1921: "DEATH TO THE BOLSHEVICKS, LONG LIVE THE SOVIETS"
http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob19.html
how should we deal with that then?

 

[RussiaWarMachin]

Probably not. It would be like splitting Rome and Italy, or Celts and Scotland/Ireland, or Babylon/Iraq, Persia/Iran, etc.

I can see your point there. At the very least they should do what they did in Civ 2 (for the Playstation anyways) and give you a choice between leaders. With the russians you had Lenin and Catherine. What I think they could do is also add more leaders to it. Like 1 or 2 choices per gender. That might add more variaty (sp?) to the game and also give more players the choice of playing as there favorite historic leader.

 

[Sir Len Taft]

1: The Soviet Union was born when the Bolchevics overthrew the Tzars in a revolution, much like how the US was born by overthrowing the British Colonies.

It was more a coup d'etat than a revolution and the actual difference between Tsarist Russia and Lenin's Russia was in practice quite minor.