Tweet
Timeline-
Have you read Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations? I highly recommend it for people interested in civ. But anyways, he defines at present six major civilizational groups:
1. Western civilization built upon Catholicism and Protestantism (Western Europe and North America);
2. the civilization built upon the Orthodox Church (Russia and Eastern Europe);
3. Islamic civilization;
4. Hindu civilization;
5. Chinese civilization;
6. Japanese civilization.
Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa exist as "candidates for civilization," with the implication that they have the potential to become distinct civilizations of their own. Five of these have their respective core state or states: for Western civilization it is the European Union (EU) and the United States; for the Orthodox civilization it is Russia; for the Hindu civilization, India; for the Chinese civilization, China; and for the Japanese civilization, Japan. There is no such core state for the Islamic civilization, nor for Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa.
This way the civs fit nicely into your eight civ parameter, though I think this would radically change some parts of the game. The Orthodox civ becomes more powerful (with addition of Eastern Europe). Western Civ is obviously much more powerful (combining US and Western Europe). China becomes more powerful with the inclusion of some APEC countries. Islam becomes more powerful, since it encompases all Islamic countries (including Maylasia and Indonesia). So I don't know if this would be more fun, since that's your objective, but it's at least a different option that satisfies the eight civ limit.
You never responded to my India question. What would you do with that country?
Regarding the barbarians, I understand your points about the pros and cons.
1. Encampments: Obviously I can't speak about this since the game hasn't come out yet. Encampments vs. Cities, who knows?
2. AI: Obviously barbarian AI will be different than other civs. I think this is actually a good thing, because it would probably more closely mimic the behavior of these rogue nations. They are expansionist and not too interested in cultural development.
3. Treaties: There aren't so many treaties between countiries like N. Korea, Iraq and the rest anyways. As rogue nations they don't have many allies.
4. Diplomatic penalties: I would respond that this might be taken care of in the new UN feature of the game, but again who knows. I think that there haven't been too many diplomatic reprocussions for the EU sending a "peacekeeping mission" into Yugoslavia, or the US invading countries like Grenada. Today Cuba doesn't have great relationships with the Russians or the Chinese. In a Cold War scenario, they might have been included in one of these civs, but now they're pretty much on their own.
So I guess I still think that these countries can be adequately represented by barbarian civs and would improve gameplay if kept separate. I mean, otherwise who is going to take in these countries. Latin America would accept Cuba, but the Chinese and Jordanians and Egyptians would be much less likely to accept N. Korea or Iraq into thier civs.
Jeff-
Thanks for the contribution. Care to comment on our scenario?
With regards to yours, I am still unclear about the mountains. Do they bisect the large continent? Surround the large continent? Are the allies in the archipelago or on the continent?
Have you read Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations? I highly recommend it for people interested in civ. But anyways, he defines at present six major civilizational groups:
1. Western civilization built upon Catholicism and Protestantism (Western Europe and North America);
2. the civilization built upon the Orthodox Church (Russia and Eastern Europe);
3. Islamic civilization;
4. Hindu civilization;
5. Chinese civilization;
6. Japanese civilization.
Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa exist as "candidates for civilization," with the implication that they have the potential to become distinct civilizations of their own. Five of these have their respective core state or states: for Western civilization it is the European Union (EU) and the United States; for the Orthodox civilization it is Russia; for the Hindu civilization, India; for the Chinese civilization, China; and for the Japanese civilization, Japan. There is no such core state for the Islamic civilization, nor for Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa.
This way the civs fit nicely into your eight civ parameter, though I think this would radically change some parts of the game. The Orthodox civ becomes more powerful (with addition of Eastern Europe). Western Civ is obviously much more powerful (combining US and Western Europe). China becomes more powerful with the inclusion of some APEC countries. Islam becomes more powerful, since it encompases all Islamic countries (including Maylasia and Indonesia). So I don't know if this would be more fun, since that's your objective, but it's at least a different option that satisfies the eight civ limit.
You never responded to my India question. What would you do with that country?
Regarding the barbarians, I understand your points about the pros and cons.
1. Encampments: Obviously I can't speak about this since the game hasn't come out yet. Encampments vs. Cities, who knows?
2. AI: Obviously barbarian AI will be different than other civs. I think this is actually a good thing, because it would probably more closely mimic the behavior of these rogue nations. They are expansionist and not too interested in cultural development.
3. Treaties: There aren't so many treaties between countiries like N. Korea, Iraq and the rest anyways. As rogue nations they don't have many allies.
4. Diplomatic penalties: I would respond that this might be taken care of in the new UN feature of the game, but again who knows. I think that there haven't been too many diplomatic reprocussions for the EU sending a "peacekeeping mission" into Yugoslavia, or the US invading countries like Grenada. Today Cuba doesn't have great relationships with the Russians or the Chinese. In a Cold War scenario, they might have been included in one of these civs, but now they're pretty much on their own.
So I guess I still think that these countries can be adequately represented by barbarian civs and would improve gameplay if kept separate. I mean, otherwise who is going to take in these countries. Latin America would accept Cuba, but the Chinese and Jordanians and Egyptians would be much less likely to accept N. Korea or Iraq into thier civs.
Jeff-
Thanks for the contribution. Care to comment on our scenario?
With regards to yours, I am still unclear about the mountains. Do they bisect the large continent? Surround the large continent? Are the allies in the archipelago or on the continent?
. Maybe you didn’t see it:
please?
Comment