The real stability maps

[blizzrd]

Thoughts:

• America should have Hawaii as either dark or light green.
• Sicily should be part of Carthage's core area as opposed to Rome's.
• Korea and Vietnam should be light green for China.
• France should have a significantly larger historical area in West Africa.
• Greece has most of Alexander's (brief) empire within its historical area (yellow mostly) but for some reason Anatolia is red?
• Inca, Aztec and Maya are screwed.
• India should have the area of modern Afghanistan as yellow.
• The areas around Kiev and Moscow should be yellow for Mongols, as the Mongols subjected/vassalised the Kievan Rus principalities for a very long time.
• Port Arthur (Korea) should be yellow for Russia.
• Finland and Ukraine should be light green for Russia, certainly not orange or red.
• Southern and Eastern England (Danelaw) and also Normandy should be yellow for the Vikings.

 

[Úmarth]

I also think the Mongol map isn't very fair to old Chinggis. This map shows the empires greatest extent, albeit only briefly attained:

Also shouldn't much more of the east coast of America be yellow for England?

And for Rome, why is only Londonium marked? Surely an Italian like yourself Rhye would want to see yellow right up to Hadrian's (or even the Antonine) wall? Also I was under the impression that the Romans controlled much more of Spain and Gaul.

Finally Russia undoubtedly controlled a much greater area of Europe for most of the last century, if we assume the civ represents the USSR as well.

Hah, Rhye must have known as soon as he posted this we'd start suggesting changes

 

[admtanaka]

28 January 1871.

I suppose I left the door open for this. Certainly the Alsace region should be allowed without substantial penalty.

In honesty though, without looking anything up, I can't think of a good reason to make Scandinavia so Germany-friendly, outside of relatively short alliances with Nazi Germany (I know little about Scandinavian history). I would say, though, that limiting the German areas now (Germany, Prussia, and Austria, with parts of Italy, etc yellow) is more or less compatible with the Mongol Map, no? Certainly at their largest, both empires were larger, but the widest expanses were held for only a relatively short time.

 

[Arkaeyn]

I also think the Mongol map isn't very fair to old Chinggis. This map shows the empires greatest extent, albeit only briefly attained:

The "briefly attained" is kind of the key. Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Alexander the Great all had huge empires at their peak. But they collapsed in just a few "turns" after that peak.

Stability doesn't STOP anyone from expanding. It just makes it likely that overexpansion will cause more problems than it fixes. Expecting it to behave in a manner that reaches an empire's highest point would be historically inaccurate. The maps should be attached to an empire's most consistent point.

 

[Úmarth]

But by that logic the Mongol Empire shouldn't be in the game at all, it barely survived past Chinggis' lifetime as a cohesive entity. I know that with Civ's mechanics one could never get a short-lived nomadic empire right, and that with Russia there Mongolia is highly unlikely ever to expand into those areas, but I think it would be nice to have the possibility of Mongol incursions into Europe (although it probably wouldn't happen until the 18th century at least =P). I concede your second point though, I suppose it is accurate that the Mongol empire expanding into those reasons should cause a lot of instability.

 

[star15389]

Why is China's stability in Manchuria worse than in Tibet? Most of the region's inhabitants are either Chinese or assimilated minority groups who don't have any particular problem with China running the place, yet almost all of it is orange, and Tibet, which is not assimilated and whose people tend to revolt against the central government a few times a year, is light green. Chinese control in Tibet has tended to wax and wane depending on the strength of the central government; Korea's history is about the same relative to China, but it's orange. Southeast Asia is also like that, but it's red rather than yellow. Most of the Mongolian spawn area was occupied by China for centuries; it should also be yellow.

 

[Arkaeyn]

But by that logic the Mongol Empire shouldn't be in the game at all, it barely survived past Chinggis' lifetime as a cohesive entity. I know that with Civ's mechanics one could never get a short-lived nomadic empire right, and that with Russia there Mongolia is highly unlikely ever to expand into those areas, but I think it would be nice to have the possibility of Mongol incursions into Europe (although it probably wouldn't happen until the 18th century at least =P). I concede your second point though, I suppose it is accurate that the Mongol empire expanding into those reasons should cause a lot of instability.

Pretty much, yeah. There's no really good way for Civ4 to model the Mongols, or for that matter, the various Turkic groups, the Huns, the Avars, etc etc. Central Asia is pretty much a mess for Civ mechanics.

The Mongols make the most sense, perhaps, as a "Civilization" in that their various Khanates survived in Central Asia for several centuries. A leaderhead for, say, Tamerlane would demonstrate that better. But still, a mess.

 

[Charles Martel]

I suppose I left the door open for this. Certainly the Alsace region should be allowed without substantial penalty.

The Germans didn't just invade and retain Alsace-Lorraine, they besieged Paris and occupied it! Paris fell on 28 January 1871, exactly ten days after the proclamation of the unification of Germany.

Here's a map showing the 1871 German occupation of France:

After that Germany did not "collapse" at all, but established itself as a world superpower.

 

[Antilogic]

I think the reason why areas like Anatolia are a little dimmer for the Greeks than we think is just because it is the Turkish core area. Rhye's map doesn't allow for two different civs to have dark greens overlap, I don't think, even if they are separated by centuries of history. There is relatively little light green overlap as well, and its in places like Canada.

 

[Lone Wolf]

At least, that red area next to Sogut could've been yellow.

 

[Antilogic]

I do think Greece should be able to expand down Anatolia's coast. Cities like Mytilene were influential to Greek history, and the Ionian Renaissance started not in Greece but on the islands off Anatolia.

Of course, the only island you could build on is Crete...we just don't have high enough resolution. And Europe is already enlarged as it is.

 

[Arkaeyn]

After that Germany did not "collapse" at all, but established itself as a world superpower.

And part of the reason for that is that it gave Paris back.

I agree that eastern France should be fairly German-friendly, for modern Alsace-Lorraine and for historical Carolignian/HRE purposes. But not Paris.

 

[admtanaka]

Agreed.

Alsace-Lorraine is one thing, all of northern France another.

 

[Charles Martel]

And part of the reason for that is that it gave Paris back.

Not at all. The reason why Bismark "gave Paris back" was not because he feared instability. He simply wasn't aiming at annexing Paris (in fact, he wasn't even expecting such a swift and crushing victory) and had other demands to make, such as five billion francs in war indemnity. In game terms, we might say that Germany gifted Paris back in exchange for gold, which itself has nothing to do with avoiding collapse or reducing instability. You might insist that IF Bismark had demanded to annex Paris, THEN Germany would have collapsed as a result. But it is not clear to me whether this counter-factual is true, because its hypothesis is too far-fetched.

I agree that eastern France should be fairly German-friendly, for modern Alsace-Lorraine and for historical Carolignian/HRE purposes. But not Paris.

Actually I have no opinion on that. I see no strong reason for or against having a German-friendly Paris.

Alsace-Lorraine is one thing, all of northern France another

Of course they aren't the same, but let us stick to the point. You asked: "When did Germany occupy any part of modern France and not collapse?" Answer: "In 1871, the newly unified German empire occupied North-Eastern France, including Paris, and Germany did not collapse". You may quibble over the meaning of the word "occupy" (just how long does an occupation need to last in order to deserve the name?), but, taken literally, your question has a clear answer, e.g. the one I have given above.

 

[Arkaeyn]

Not at all. The reason why Bismark "gave Paris back" was not because he feared instability. He simply wasn't aiming at annexing Paris (in fact, he wasn't even expecting such a swift and crushing victory) and had other demands to make, such as five billion francs in war indemnity. In game terms, we might say that Germany gifted Paris back in exchange for gold, which itself has nothing to do with avoiding collapse or reducing instability. You might insist that IF Bismark had demanded to annex Paris, THEN Germany would have collapsed as a result. But it is not clear to me whether this counter-factual is true, because its hypothesis is too far-fetched.

In 19th-century diplomatic terms, particularly "balance of powers," the idea of annexing a capital city is absurd, because it undermines the stability of the whole system. Of course the plan wasn't to annex Paris. It wasn't a plan because it wasn't a good idea.

Later events in Paris would also indicate that the region was, in actuality, rather unstable. Later attempts by the Germans to occupy France would also demonstrate that occupation of the capital was, in fact, likely to lead to mass resistance and collapse of the occupying force.

An example of a long-term occupation with debilitating effects on stability in Europe might be Poland after its partition. Though it didn't necessarily lead to the collapse of the occupying powers, it did force them to spend large amounts of energy suppressing rebellions.

Answer: "In 1871, the newly unified German empire occupied North-Eastern France, including Paris, and Germany did not collapse". You may quibble over the meaning of the word "occupy" (just how long does an occupation need to last in order to deserve the name?), but, taken literally, your question has a clear answer, e.g. the one I have given above.

The question is obviously not meant to be taken 100% literally. Within the terms of the conversation (how this relates to RFC), a single year with occupation is simply too small to even be noticed. In fact, I believe that the calendar skips every other year in RFC at that point, so 1871 doesn't even exist within the context of the mod we're discussing.

 

[Charles Martel]

In 19th-century diplomatic terms, particularly "balance of powers," the idea of annexing a capital city is absurd, because it undermines the stability of the whole system. Of course the plan wasn't to annex Paris. It wasn't a plan because it wasn't a good idea.

Indeed. The Germans did not annex Paris, not because they wanted to maintain internal stability (as you seemed to suggest in your previous post), but simply because they had other plans. In fact, the idea of annexing Paris wasn't even an option anybody had seriously considered. Hence, the non-annexation of Paris has little or nothing to do with the desire to preserve the internal stability of the German empire.

Later events in Paris would also indicate that the region was, in actuality, rather unstable. Later attempts by the Germans to occupy France would also demonstrate that occupation of the capital was, in fact, likely to lead to mass resistance and collapse of the occupying force.

I don't see this. Later events show that Paris descended into civil war, they do not show that Germany would have collapsed had Bismark attempted a long-term occupation North-Eastern France. Like I said, such a what-if scenario is too far-fetched to have a clear outcome.

An example of a long-term occupation with debilitating effects on stability in Europe might be Poland after its partition. Though it didn't necessarily lead to the collapse of the occupying powers, it did force them to spend large amounts of energy suppressing rebellions.

Yes, of course: long-term occupation of a foreign land is a likely cause of civil unrest - that is precisely what Rhye's stability is meant to simulate, regardless of whether Paris is yellow or red on Germany's stability map.

The question is obviously not meant to be taken 100% literally. Within the terms of the conversation (how this relates to RFC), a single year with occupation is simply too small to even be noticed. In fact, I believe that the calendar skips every other year in RFC at that point, so 1871 doesn't even exist within the context of the mod we're discussing.

The question was asked rhetorically, and rhetorical questions are always meant to have obvious answers. Unfortunately, if you do not take Admtanaka's question literally, but try to think of it in RFC's terms, it does not longer have a clear meaning, let alone an obvious answer. For starters, what makes you so sure that a single year of occupation cannot even take place within RFC? The Franco-Prussian war started in 1870, lasted long enough to span almost a whole game turn, and it's one of the most salient events of that decade. In game's terms: in 1870 or 1871 AD (whatever year you have at that point in RFC's calendar) Germany declares war, sneak-attack Paris and takes it, all in the same turn. Then France sues for peace, and Paris is gifted back… or not. But should Germany be much more likely to collapse if it retains Paris? I don’t know. Who knows?

 

[wolfigor]

Looking at the German stability map, it looks like covering the area post-unification (from 19th century).
But Germany spawns much earlier (around 800AD) and it represents the HRE too.
If this view is true (in RFC Germany = HRE+Germany) then the stability map should have some more yellow colour to the west to cover the netherlands and the western part of France.

 

[wolfigor]

About the Roman stability map, I'm surprised.
I really think there should not be yellow colours in mesopotamia.
Historically the Roman control of that area was temporary at the best.

Instead the land of England, France, and Spain should be yellow, representing the long lasting Roman domination and assimilation to the Roman's way of life, language, and law.

 

[-Perceval-]

for the aztec in north west america.
they had gold mine in california so red is maybe a little bit exagerated.
And why the hell the japanese have green in north america?

 

[Antilogic]

Instead the land of England, France, and Spain should be yellow, representing the long lasting Roman domination and assimilation to the Roman's way of life, language, and law.

Again, I think Rhye has a rule about overlapping another player's core area (dark green) with other people's favored territories.