|
Post by cdiplayer on Sept 18, 2012 4:16:23 GMT -6
Okay so the first thing I notice is that Ethiopia is a dictatorship, I think it should be a democracy because of the fluid state of Parliamentary democracies. The Parliament can kick out a Prime Minister whenever they wish and although I wouldn't say Ethiopia is a "free" democracy, it is certainly not a dictatorship. Also, in my game Poland seems quite overpowered, it was able to conquer all of Russia! South Korea also seems overpowered as it was able to own China. By the way you should get rid of that phantom Kurdistan on the loyalty map if you can. It is really annoying when I am colonizing Turkey, Iraq, and Syria only to find this big blob in the middle that is governed by me. You either need to make a Kurdistan in Northern Syria along these borders. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Syrian_Kurdish_rebellion so that I can colonize them and hand over the rest of Kurdistan to them once I conquer Iraq and Turkey or you need to get rid of them on the loyalty map. You could also make a Syrian Opposition faction that has tons of international support and is supported by NATO forces to offset the Syrian military's strength. For the sake of gameplay you could also give this small Kurdistan state really, really friendly relations with all it's neighbors so it doesn't get wiped out before I get to colonize it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by number47 on Sept 18, 2012 9:52:10 GMT -6
Poland doesn't actually overpower Russia, their allies do (rest of the Europe fighting under mutual defence pact with Poland) The same thing goes for South Korea (just in this case, the main fighting force is USA on South Korea side)...
|
|
|
Post by Fistalis on Sept 18, 2012 19:36:26 GMT -6
Number 47 is correct. I spend alot of time researching and making sure forces are properly represented. So if a nation is Over powered its most lkely either due to allies helping or the real world data supports them to be. Of course some nations have a lack of data available for their armed forces, or the data is out of date. But South Korea is definately not one of those. Ill go over their oob but im relatively certain its correct. As to Ethiopia, I'll take a look at it. Most of the dictatorships were set as such due to their low ranking in multiple Democracy indexes. Just because someone claims to have a type of government doesn't necessarily make it so.(Saddam won every election in Iraq, doesn't mean they had a Democracy) Any nation that was listed on Multiple democracy indexes as Not Free was set as a dictatorship.(unless of course they were a monarchy or communist state.) Ethiopia as not free in 2 of the 4 and partial free in teh other 2. When there was opposing views between indexes I do more research and make the call. You can read more here www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/ethiopia Believe it or not I did more research on the governments and freedom in nations than just looking at wikipedia.(which is often times modified to be more friendly to nations by agents of their government) And while there were some changes from the last release version, you can see those changes in the latest Beta version. Generally speaking, Even if a government is Officially a democracy, If they have been controlled by an authoritarian regime for a long period of time they have been set to a dictatorship in game. Kurdistan, There are large swaths of Iraq, turkey and syria which are all far more loyal to the idea of a Kurdish state than they are to their actual nation. So i really see no reason it should be removed. Especially considering I may or May not eventually put in some sort of Civil war situations for these nations with the kurds declaring independence. The issue with colonies being based on loyalty is something BG needs to remedy. I'm not going to modify my mod to work around BGs broken mechanics anymore. I did enough of that the first year of creating this mod. (anyone remember the version that all islands had ports removed to prevent the destack bug?)
|
|
|
Post by mertcanks on Sept 18, 2012 23:18:08 GMT -6
I'm from Turkey.Impossible to be independent Kurdistan.Maybe Iraq,Syria can but not Turkey.Turkey a strong state...
|
|
|
Post by cdiplayer on Sept 19, 2012 2:41:33 GMT -6
Number 47 is correct. I spend alot of time researching and making sure forces are properly represented. So if a nation is Over powered its most lkely either due to allies helping or the real world data supports them to be. Of course some nations have a lack of data available for their armed forces, or the data is out of date. But South Korea is definately not one of those. Ill go over their oob but im relatively certain its correct. As to Ethiopia, I'll take a look at it. Most of the dictatorships were set as such due to their low ranking in multiple Democracy indexes. Just because someone claims to have a type of government doesn't necessarily make it so.(Saddam won every election in Iraq, doesn't mean they had a Democracy) Any nation that was listed on Multiple democracy indexes as Not Free was set as a dictatorship.(unless of course they were a monarchy or communist state.) Ethiopia as not free in 2 of the 4 and partial free in teh other 2. When there was opposing views between indexes I do more research and make the call. You can read more here www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/ethiopia Believe it or not I did more research on the governments and freedom in nations than just looking at wikipedia.(which is often times modified to be more friendly to nations by agents of their government) And while there were some changes from the last release version, you can see those changes in the latest Beta version. Generally speaking, Even if a government is Officially a democracy, If they have been controlled by an authoritarian regime for a long period of time they have been set to a dictatorship in game. Kurdistan, There are large swaths of Iraq, turkey and syria which are all far more loyal to the idea of a Kurdish state than they are to their actual nation. So i really see no reason it should be removed. Especially considering I may or May not eventually put in some sort of Civil war situations for these nations with the kurds declaring independence. The issue with colonies being based on loyalty is something BG needs to remedy. I'm not going to modify my mod to work around BGs broken mechanics anymore. I did enough of that the first year of creating this mod. (anyone remember the version that all islands had ports removed to prevent the destack bug?) Well I hope you add in Civil War scenarios in Syria at some point so that I won't have to deal with this large blob in the middle of all my colonies
|
|
|
Post by Fistalis on Sept 19, 2012 4:21:01 GMT -6
Well I hope you add in Civil War scenarios in Syria at some point so that I won't have to deal with this large blob in the middle of all my colonies The current situation in Iraq may require it. The Kurdish portion of Iraq his highly autonomous and Both Iran and turkey have invaded it to fight the Kurdish rebel forces in the last year. (unfortunately there is a media blackout of the iranian invasion and its hard to determine if the Iranian forces ever withdrew). The best solution would be to make the Iraqi kurdistan a colony of Iraq, then make some pockets controlled by rebel forces. Similar to how Waziristan is set up in game to control a small pocket of pakistan. The Kurdish areas are something I have been wanted to take a better look at, but the issue is the same as with Syrian rebels. If i did put them in game they would likely fall to the massive military forces of the main nations on the first day. Insurgent and Guerrilla warfare isn't handled well by the supreme ruler engine.
|
|
|
Post by cdiplayer on Sept 22, 2012 22:15:03 GMT -6
Well I hope you add in Civil War scenarios in Syria at some point so that I won't have to deal with this large blob in the middle of all my colonies The current situation in Iraq may require it. The Kurdish portion of Iraq his highly autonomous and Both Iran and turkey have invaded it to fight the Kurdish rebel forces in the last year. (unfortunately there is a media blackout of the iranian invasion and its hard to determine if the Iranian forces ever withdrew). The best solution would be to make the Iraqi kurdistan a colony of Iraq, then make some pockets controlled by rebel forces. Similar to how Waziristan is set up in game to control a small pocket of pakistan. The Kurdish areas are something I have been wanted to take a better look at, but the issue is the same as with Syrian rebels. If i did put them in game they would likely fall to the massive military forces of the main nations on the first day. Insurgent and Guerrilla warfare isn't handled well by the supreme ruler engine. Making a Kurdish colony in Iraq sounds like a good idea. I still think you should include Kurdish and Syrian opposition rebels in Syria though and offset their weakness by giving them tons of allies. In other words it could be like when the two Koreas go to war. The U.S. and other countries get involved and essentially fight for South Korea.
|
|
|
Post by cdiplayer on Sept 25, 2012 2:30:40 GMT -6
Oh yeah and one last thing. Is there any chance I could convince you to rename Taiwan to Republic of China? The only reason I ask is because when I reconquer the mainland as Taiwan its kinda silly for it to still be named Taiwan.
|
|
|
Post by Fistalis on Sept 25, 2012 7:13:49 GMT -6
Oh yeah and one last thing. Is there any chance I could convince you to rename Taiwan to Republic of China? The only reason I ask is because when I reconquer the mainland as Taiwan its kinda silly for it to still be named Taiwan. This goes back to the korea debate over naming conventions. Generally speaking I feel having the official name for one government while others are left alone ruins any semblance continuity in the naming convention. Since many nations have official names that are too long to be included I doubt this will change. I'll see if i can find a compromise thats less confusing than korea and korea though. ;D (I'm still annoyed when korea declares war on korea cause i never know if i should support or condemn it. But this was implemented for the exact same complaints, south Korea or north korea controlling a unified Korea.)
|
|
|
Post by cdiplayer on Sept 27, 2012 5:45:19 GMT -6
Why not call North Korea People's Korea and South Korea Republic of Korea or Korean Republic?
|
|
|
Post by Fistalis on Sept 27, 2012 14:18:04 GMT -6
Why not call North Korea People's Korea and South Korea Republic of Korea or Korean Republic? Cause if I was going to make up names I think id call North Korea candy land and south Korea Mordor. Personally I would prefer to use what they are called in common speech and that is North Korea and South Korea. But I got sick of hearing people whine about North and South..so I simply removed them.
|
|
|
Post by cdiplayer on Sept 28, 2012 1:59:37 GMT -6
Well hey you were saying the official names were too long so I tried to shorten them.
|
|
|
Post by Fistalis on Sept 28, 2012 7:03:06 GMT -6
Well hey you were saying the official names were too long so I tried to shorten them. I understand. The issue is I like consistency. IF I were to start using the Official names of one I would want to do the same for all. Which would end up with me abbreviating probably 50% of the worlds nations in some form. If I had the naming space I would have switched them all to the official names. But since I don't I'd prefer to leave the names as used in common conversation language. The United Kindom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland just wont fit. ;D (Along with all the different Peoples democratic republics like north korea, Algeria etc)
|
|
|
Post by mertcanks on Sept 28, 2012 13:17:16 GMT -6
Why talk about how to change the regime in? for example; Democracy-communism monarchy- teocracy...
|
|
|
Post by cdiplayer on Oct 6, 2012 21:59:10 GMT -6
I'm also surprised that you haven't put the Syrian opposition in yet you put FARC in. In the real world I would say that the Syrian opposition has a much better chance of toppling the Syrian government than FARC does at toppling the Colombian government.
|
|