Would you rename any of the existing factions?

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually, I find most of the proposed sponsors kind of silly. The African one is particularly ridiculous. All of Africa? Seriously?
Unless we are considering them to actually be different countries/nations that are pooling resources to send an expedition into space under a single banner as a desperate measure to save humanity, which could actually make some sense.
It would make for incredibly difficult cultural issues during the space trip, though...

You realize that is what they are. Multinational organizations.

Some may be more centralized than others (the UK is technically multinational, the USA is technically composed of multiple sovereign states, and the Warsaw Pact was technically independent countries)

But I don't think any of them are what we would refer to as a unified nation-state (except Maybe FrancoIberia)

 

[elprofesor]

You realize that is what they are. Multinational organizations.

Some may be more centralized than others (the UK is technically multinational, the USA is technically composed of multiple sovereign states, and the Warsaw Pact was technically independent countries)

But I don't think any of them are what we would refer to as a unified nation-state (except Maybe FrancoIberia)

Depends. While "Panasian cooperative" certainly sounds like the name of a joint economical effort by diverse countries, "People's African Union" doesn't. It's the name of a government. And no constitution even remotely similar to that of the USA or the UK is going to keep the latter unified, it's simply too diverse.
Heck, if you have been following european news the last few years, you'll notice that the tendency right now is to have countries split up into independent nation states, not for nation states to form federations; and compared to Africa, Europe is very homogeneous.
Basically, the names sound like federal states formed of smaller nations, not like joint ventures by those nations. And given history and the current situation of the World, I think the former are very unlikely to happen, not even in 200 years, and implying so is grossly simplifying our current reality.
You may argue that it's fine, because this game is crazy science-fiction in another planet, not about Earth, but still, we have to fight mistaken preconceptions wherever we find them (same as lack of female protagonists in videogames, etc. etc.)

Sorry for the slightly off-topic rant.

 

[m15a]

I thought that, like the (real-world) EU, PAU is just part of Africa. I figure that the similarity in the names might be meant to suggest that. (I know the idea that it doesn't include northern Africa was mentioned, but I can't remember if that was canonical.)

Africa in the present day may be more varied than Europe, but don't you think that suggesting that the situation 200 years from now can be determined based on current politics (or, worse, by looking at trends from the past several years) is grossly overestimating our ability to predict the future?

I think I see what you're getting at with trying to combat the stereotype that Africa is homogenous, but Pan-Africanism is a real thing, and, IMO, the game should be able to represent that. It'll depend on the text present in the game, but it could very well be that the presence of the PAU in the game will raise people's awareness of the current political and social landscape of Africa.

 

[elprofesor]

I thought that, like the (real-world) EU, PAU is just part of Africa. I figure that the similarity in the names might be meant to suggest that. (I know the idea that it doesn't include northern Africa was mentioned, but I can't remember if that was canonical.)

I wouldn't mind if the PAU was an EU-like organization, because the EU is mainly economical in nature. I mean, the African Union already exists today. The fact that there's a P before the AU is what is bothering me. Adding "People's" in front of it changes the connotations...

Africa in the present day may be more varied than Europe, but don't you think that suggesting that the situation 200 years from now can be determined based on current politics (or, worse, by looking at trends from the past several years) is grossly overestimating our ability to predict the future?

I plead guilty, certainly we can't predict what the World will look like in 200 years, no more we could have predicted smartphones 50 years ago.
But in my limited knowledge of history, countries usually become larger through warfare (or threat thereof). One would hope that the scale of warfare that would be required to form some of these entities over petty imperialisms are a thing of the past. And the spontaneous formation of the PAU as a state entity (and to a lesser extent Brazilia; don't know about some of the others) is a fairly extravagant notion, unless somehow the millenia old concepts of nations and ethnic groups were to somehow vanish in the near future. Which isn't necessarily a bad proposition, just an unlikely one.

Oh well, I am getting worked up over very little.

 

[Teproc]

Did someone just say they though people spoke French in Spain ?

On a Civilization forums ?

Are you kidding me ?