World 2008 development thread.

I think for me it would be fun to play UK as a small civ. If it had a permanent alliance with EU there would still be a realistic option to win the game.
And there are ways to make even a small UK as powerful as it is in reality. You just have to try to represent the reasons why the small reality-UK is that powerful in the real world:
- Colonies and associated countries
You wouldn't have left UK with two cities. In reality UK still has oversea territories: Northern Ireland, Bermuda, Falklands and Gibraltar are the biggest. Alone Gibraltar would make a nice strategic city due to its control of the Street of Gibraltar.

- UN Security Council
I'm suggesting a modified UN like it is in reality. In fact not the UN General Assembly has the most power to decide about things like it does in CIV but the UN Security Council. Every member has one vote, despite of their population, and 5 permanent members can veto desicions. These members are USA, Russia, China, France (here: EU) and UK.
So this makes UK as powerful as USA, Russia or China. At least in the Security Council.

- Military
UK should have one of the largest and most modern military in the world. Especially focused on royal navy and royal air force. To make this status quo at the beginning of the game should be no problem. Ho to keep it up during the game I don't know. One way is to have a high diversity of unit types with advanced technologies. Another way is to create a higher number of xp-gaining buildings so that a unit trained in london would get like 10 or 15 xp right from the start while the same unit trained in delhi would get only 4.
And - don't forget about that - UK is one of the few countries with nuclear weapons. UK should have a rather high amount of ICBMs.

- Production & Commerce
UK has the 5th highest GDP in the world although it is small. How would that work in the game? Two things are important: Production and Commerce.
UK cities must produce a very high amount of hammers. This is partly because very little of the UK is used as farmlands, a lot of buildings and wonders increase producion + commerce and most important: a significant amount of great specialists (engineers and merchants) in UK cities at game start. This is a great way to make small civs more powerful.


Don't forget: The powerful status of the UK in reality is only due its massive advance in development even to states like china, russia or india. Once this advance is melted the UK will become more insifnificant.
 
By the way...the UN Security Council also has 10 non-permanent members without veto right. These (maybe reduced to 7) could be elected every x turns (reality: every year half of the non-permanent members).
The election process might be like the one to elect the secretary-general. But maybe one should adapt the process to reality: This means one civ - one vote - at least formally. Of course a more abstract model with a coefficient made up of population, production, commerce and military would be a nice feature, too. But maybe too complicated.

The chairmanship of the UN security council changes every month. It rotates in alphabetical order of the Security Council member nations' names in English. So there would be no need to elect a general secretary. Just the non-permanent members.
 
Well, but in game, is UK really so different both from EU and US (or NATO, or my some-parts-of-Commonwealth idea) to be completely independent? I agree, that with allies UK still have chance to be counted against other superpowers, and with proper development it still can produce lots of units, research etc. But as I said above, I'd rather see lower number of civs, and this is one of those I can imagine as part of bigger "civ."
(and I'm also a little bit worried how it would work with my hardware)

I'd definately like more options with the UN, however, power of UN is not highest today.
 
IMO you can have much much more than a 30-40 civ dll. Highest I've seen had 200 something. The problem is not the ability to add civs or make a realistic map, it is our computers ability to process that much info in a timely fashion.

Even if you have dual quad cores and 4GB RAM, a map with 40 civs that compares in size with Genghis Khans' map will have major lag, and will be quite unplayable, especially if all the civs are fully developed from the beginning (2008).

I've seen this major flaw in many scenarios. It would be fantastic if we could do such large projects, but I'm afraid the computing power just isn't there yet.
 
I think there must be a compromise of realism and playability concerning the number of civs. But it would be great if it was as realistic as possible. So IMO there should be less than 40 civs. But in choosing civs there are two things to be concerned: It would be sad if an important conflict would be sacrificed for a less important one. This means e.g. including UK into EU instead of including Taiwan into China. So basically what I mean is that the fact that the EU despite its plans is not yet able to act as one in geopolitics can be neglected in favour of other important conflicts.
And personally I wouldn't like to see utopian/sci-fi hyperstate-unions like eu and usa in one "western" civ or latin america as a whole civ. Especially a number of small civs would add spice to the scenario.

I agree with DVS's idea of portraying today's world and simplify it afterwards if it doesn't work and somebody would like it more simple.
 
there is the problem of playability, but even still we NEED to include at least:
USA
Canada
China
india
Australia
Two kinds of barbs
Mexico
Brazil
Argentina
Other S.A countries
African Union
South Africa
Saudia Arabia
Nigeria
Arab Union
Israel
Russia
EU
UK(maybe eu)
S.E Asia
Turkey and associates
Japan
N. Korea
S. Korea

Have I forgotten anyone?
But It could be do-able with just 25 as I count it.
no need to clog up the processors with 40 civs
 
yeah bro I think you left out a few we definitely need. Pakistan, Venezuela, Colombia, etc would all hurt to take out. Plus there is no arab union. Instability in the mid east has got to be one of the defining aspects of this scenario.

I have played 30+ civs and it has not been extremely slow. Remember we're using the smaller Ryse's world map, not GK's giant earth map.

I updated my list on page 1 of this thread. I'll post it again below. I don't think we can lose any more and still keep it realistic. Let me know what you guys think.

P.S. I love the idea of having the UK leading a powerful NATO, allied with the EU and USA. That is perfect.
 
United States of America- controls Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico, Panama, Diego Garcia (Indian ocean), Pacific Islands (Midway, Guam, Marshal Islands, Samoa, etc), Iraq, Afghanistan, Taiwan.

Canada
Mexico
China
North Korea
Russia
Kazakhstan
Israel
Palestine (gaza strip + west bank).
Egypt
Iran - controls Syria.
South Korea
Nigeria
Pakistan
India
Venezuela - controls Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Paraguay.
Colombia
Brazil
Argentina
Myanmar
Japan
Australia
Philippines
Republic of Indonesia
Saudi Arabia
Sudan
South Africa

European Union- Euro nations.

Permanent Neutrality: Switzerland (capital), Costa Rica, Liechtenstein Turkmenistan.

NATO (non-EU) - UK (capital), Turkey, Iceland, Norway, Croatia, Albania.

Independent African States-Angola (capital), Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Zimbabwe, Kenya.

African Union- all African countries that don't fall in to our "independent" or "barbarian" groups.

hostile barbarians- "Failed States". Somalia, Eritrea, East Timor, Equatorial Guinea. There should also be strong hostile barbarian rebel cities in Iraq, Afghanistan, and western Sudan. Weaker barbarian groups elsewhere, maybe without cities, including in Columbia, Chechnya (Russia), Mexico, Algeria, Basque (EU) and Tibet (China).

peaceful barbarians- "Independent Nations"- Papua New Guinea, Brunei, Singapore, Dominican republic, Peru, Chile, Vietnam,



So, that's 34. I wouldn't mind seeing Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea all being their own civs as well, but the consensus seems to be that we need less, not more.
 
I would definately include Venezuela, Iran, Palestine, Pakistan and Nigeria. These are major issues. Maybe also Colombia. But I'm not too sure about Kazakhstan...do we need it? I understand the idea of not making Russia too big but couldn't it be part of the peaceful barbarians? With borders to hostile barbarians in Afghanistan. I'd rather see Taiwan separated from China...with a defensive pact with USA. :-)

I'm still not sure about the UK. Of the possible three solutions (independent, EU-member, NATO-capital) IMO the NATO is the least favourable. As a European ;) I consider the UK to have more in common with the Euro-states than with Turkey or Albania.

But I think the solution "smaller map - more civs" is wonderful.
 
We could do away with the Permanent Neutrality civ, putting those nations into the peaceful barbarian civ.
 
Switzerland as barbarians. Sounds nice :D

One question: Which criteria did you use to put states into the "African Union" or "Independent African States" civ? As far as I know all African states except Morocco are AU members...
 
well, none of those countries are actually "barbarians". I hope no one from any of those countries takes that as an insult. That is simply what they are called in the game, and setting it up this way suits our purpose. The second barbarian group is not going to be at war with anyone.

I like the idea of having a permanently neutral civ, for trading purposes. It would be nice if we could make it impossible for this civ to go to war ever. I have been trying to figure out how to achieve that, so far without results.
 
I imagine them as two distinct civs:

Permanent Neutrality: Cannot build military units (other than basic defenses); Cannot declare war; If war is declared on them, all bordering civs declare war on the attacker (unless they have alliances with the attacker)*
Peaceful Nations: Can build military units; Can (but very unlikely to) attack others; If attacked, nothing really happens

What are your thoughts on that?

*Imagine the way Belgium was invaded during WWI
 
OK, what about the leaders? I suggest:

United States of America: George W. Bush (Aggressive, Imperialistic)
Canada: Stephen Harper (Protective, Organised)
Mexico: Felipe Calderón (Organised, Financial)
China: Wen Jiabao (Organised, Industrious)
North Korea: Kim Yong-Il (Protective, Aggresive)
Russia: Dmitrij Medvedev (Expansive, Industrious)
Kazakhstan: Nursultan Nazarbaev (Protective, Charismatic)
Israel: Ehud Olmert (Protective, Expansive)
Palestine (gaza strip + west bank): Mahmud Abbas (Spiritual, Protective)
Egypt: Hosni Mubarak (Organised, Spiritual)
Iran - controls Syria: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Spiritual, Aggressive)
South Korea: Lee Myung-bak (Financial, Industrious)
Nigeria: Umaru Yar'Adua (Organised, Philosophical)
Pakistan: Pervez Musharraf (Aggressive, Expansive)
India: Manmohan Singh (Financial, Creative)
Venezuela: Hugo Chavez (Charismatic, Imperialistic)
Colombia: Álvaro Uribe (Aggressive, Financial)
Brazil: Lula da Silva (Philosophical, Charismatic)
Argentina: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Charismatic, Financial)
Myanmar: Than Shwe (Organised, Protective)
Japan: Yasuo Fukuda (Industrious, Philosophical)
Australia: Kevin Rudd (Philosophical, Financial)
Philippines: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (Organised, Protective)
Republic of Indonesia: Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (Protective, Creative)
Saudi Arabia: Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz (Spiritual, Financial)
Sudan: Omar Hassan al-Bashir (Aggressive, Spiritual)
South Africa: Thabo Mbeki (Financial, Protective)
European Union: José Manuel Barroso (Financial, Industrious)
Permanent Neutrality (if in the game): Micheline Calmy-Rey (Philosophical, Creative)
NATO: Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (Expansive, Imperialistic)
Independent African States: Muammar al-Gaddafi (Charismatic, Organised)
African Union: Jakaya Kikwete (Protective, Expansive)
and Taiwan (if in the game): Chen Shui-bian (Protective, Industrious)

Note: I edited the post and added possible leader traits
 
Yep, all the leaders currently in power should lead their civs. We have a Bush LH, an Armadinehjad LH and a Kim-Jong-Il LH ready made. As for the others, there are many leaders around we could use. I'll link to some of the modern custom leaders to see if they'd fit.
 
pinochet could easily be made into musharraf
trudeau could work as olmert
 
Back
Top Bottom