 |
| |
|
|
iamjason
|
|
I feel like I'm chiming in a little late, it looks like you've probably got you're civs lined up now.
But in terms of who goes where, I would personally do something like this:
1. England (Canada, Australia, South Africa)
2. USA (Israel)
3. Japan (South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore)
4. EU (EU countries, including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Cyprus, Malta and Turkey(?))
5. Russia (Little Asian countries, some of East Europe)
6. Southeast Asia (Thailand, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam(?))
7. Mexico
8. Andean Nations (Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador) (I think it needs a better name because Venezuela Colombia Ecuador Guyana and Suriname aren't very Andean)
9. Mercosur (Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina, Chile)
10. African Union (All Africa except in 1, 11, 12)
11. Secular Islamic States (Morocco, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia)
12. Islamic Fundamentalist States (Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia (?))
13. China (NK, Mongolia, Tibet, Vietnam(?), Cuba(?))
14. India (Nepal, Sri Lanka)
I put South Africa with the Commonwealth because even though apartheid is over, all the wealthy people are Britishy.
I agree with putting Israel with the US because of land-size concerns, but I don't think your average American or Israeli sees such a connection (your average Iraqi, o the other hand...) Also, Taiwan and South Korea work fine with Japan, because they are similar enough economically and should NOT be part of China.
I included a list of brand-new EU members who I think have shifted completely away from the old Warsaw Pact and should be EU in a modern setting. Turkey is a question mark, because although it is a part of NATO, it might be a while before it makes the EU. If not, it's probably a Secular Islamic state.
Russia should have fewer easter European countries now, and I think the Ukraine and Belarus fits with it. Vietnam might fit with China, though it seems to be going it's own way and could be part of SE Asia.
Not sure what to do about Central and South America. Having visited Argentina, I'd put it completely on it's own, since they all seemed to think they were European  Perhaps you could do a little reading and find out who all has had military dictator "presidents" fighting socialist "freedom fighters" with U.S. money and training. They could be one civ. I kind of like putting Cuba with China just for strategic reasons, though I don't know how accurate it is. Maybe give it to Russia.
As for Africa and the Middle East, it might be more interesting to break countries up along ideological boundaries rahter than geographic. One thing the U.S. govt seems to not get is that the Ismaic terrorist organizations are not fond of Iraq, because it's seen as way to secular. You could break them down between secular Islamic countries and fundamentalist. Saudi Arabia is on the borderline, since their government tries to please both sides. Pakistan, by the looks of the last election, is moving toward the fundamentalist side. It still might seem weird putting Iraq in with Pakistan, Eqypt and Jordan. Anyway, after all that is done I would lump the rest of Africa together because so many of those countries are dealing with the same issues, like post-colonialism, revolutions, AIDS, etc.
If you want another civ, you could put the rest of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet states into one and call it Eastern Europe or something. They would have low tech and economy but some nukes.
For another civ, you could break off Indonesia and put it with Malaysia, New Guinea, the Philippines and Micronesia and call it South Pacific Group or something. Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore are certainly world-class economic powers.
Just my two cents.
BTW, I'd love comments on my Colonization mod, located here:
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=65213
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Nuclear Winter
|
|
First of all, hello to thy forum, since im new here 
After this, I´d like to say that this mod is taking a very interesting look, so I´d like to add my 2 cents, rather than criticize...
I´d like to remember yoou that Brazil and also Venezuela have some very capacitated ParatroopersBeing actually considered some of the best in thewhole world, so don´t forget to add some.
As we still ave conscription in here (if nobody noticed yet, I´m Brazilian), you could add, just for flavour, some 2 or 3 conscripted infantry here and there. Maybe, if you have enough time and disposition, you could do 2 carriers, an old one (WW2) wich could carry only planes, and another one, new, who could carry Balistic missiles and Nuclear Warheads.
It could also be interesting for gameplay to put Brasil and argentina appart, so that one nation would have to conquer the other first in order to gain supremacy in the south (and in this case Brazil should be much more powerful in means of army!!!! MWAHMWAHMWAHMWAH! Ops, I´m being partial!).
Maybe you could put some rebel units around Israel(though not Barbarians) to respresent the palestin... same thing with Chechenia...
Are there going to be new modern wonders? Also, the B29 you talked about in a post around there has any nuke carrying capacity?
I´m already way too long, let me bid you all farewell and good luck!
Nuclear Winter
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
Whats your timeframe?
If you mean the scenerio to start from today, then any type of tank before WW2 makes no sense. No one, no matter how poor or backward, uses any tank less advanced than a T-34 or a Super Sherman tank, no one.
As for cavalry- it should have the same atatck as riflemen and even lower defense. the fact that the afghans used cavalry means little-its not reallt a very viable form of unit anymore.
What about guerilla units? Again, if you are starting from today, in terms of time, most armed men have assualt rifles or better- verall, carbines and blt rifles, while sill around, are not very relevant.
And on armored cars: This unit should be common for small civs- lots of state have large armored cars fill the space of tanks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:22
|
|
On the number of military units:
I know that the normal urge is to create a huge number of units, but I think that it is more realistic and more interesting, to hold the numbe of units way down. For example: Take a civ like mexico: the states represented by it all have tiny armies and almost non-existent airforces and so forth. To give such a civ anything more than one unit per city (some sort of police, internal security unit) and then maybe 6-10 'army'units seems totally out of line. In act, i like that idea: of internal security units (police and paramilitary, as opposed to army) that make sure cities don't just stay defenseless, to be complemented by 'army units' that would do fighting and defending of cities against enemy armies (aftre all, no modern state has armored divisionsguarding its cities)
Also, units should be expensive to own ofr the more advance states, with 2 or 3 gold upkeep. the fact is that modern armies are not that huge: they work on notion of vast firepower ussed in pintpoint ammounts. we will never see a WW2 type of massed armies of millions fighting on thousand mile fronts. So, making units very powerful, but costly and rare would gve a far more accurate picture of the world than armies of 200 units per civ slugging it out (and it also makes the game go faster, makes strategy and keeping all your units more important)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jaguar
|
 |
Montgomery County, MD
Apr 2000
time: 00:22
|
|
Sabre: Each civ will be different. They'll have different units. (Currently I have six MA types.) They'll have different wonders too, and also there will be uber-resources to give Japan lots of trade, so that although it can't produce many units, it can buy advanced ones and stay near the top in research.
Heresson: Sevastopol and Kiev, the only Ukrainian cities I chose to represent, are in the Eastern Europe civ. Who should get the leader? Ukraine or Poland? Ukraine's leader is President Kuchma? Or Prime Minister Kinakh? I don't understand their government at all...  Poland has the same thing - President Kwasniewski and Prime Minister Miller. I think in your Eastern Europe governments the Pres appoints the Prime Minister, in which case it should be Kuchma or Kwasniewski, but I'm not sure. I try to keep up to date on European politics, but it's difficult.
Austral:
USA - Bush - Washington DC (FP Jerusalem)
Mexico - Fox - Mexico City
Andean SA - Manrique- Lima
Mercosur - Cardoso - Rio De Janiero
Britain - Tony Blair - London (FPs Ottawa, Sydney)
EU - Chirac - Berlin
Eastern Europe - Kwasniewski(?) - Warsaw (Kiev?)
Arabs - (Hmm...) - Mecca
Persian Asia - Musharraf - Tehran
Russia - Putin - Moscow
India - Kalam - New Delhi
China - Zemin - Beijing
Japan - Koizumi - Tokyo
Southeast Asia - (?) - Bangkok
Central Africa - (?) - Lagos
South Africa - (?) - Cape Town (Kinshasha?)
I'm open to suggestions.
BTW I'm 60% done with Russia, having placed 50(!) cities. I'm thouroughly convinced that Russia will be plenty powerful. Tassadar will be happy. 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-10-2002 09:05
and halloween and another "don't do anything useful" sort of day is coming up on friday because of the end of the quarter, and then I'll have the weekend, so I think I can finish the entire world city placement. 
.
|