> In a message dated 98-05-13 23:15:01 EDT, John M. Atkinson writes:
<< All I can do is extrapolate from what their published background says. And
it looks
like nations have retained their historical character-- >>
Too true. I think that while this may be seen as some (NOT me) as a
cop-out
for not wanting to come up with innovative, 'futuristic' political bodies, I
like it, because it has the familiar ring of the modern world, with enough
'chrome' from the future and solidity of past history to make it feel
playable. It's hard to care about some unknown, unknowable entity, made up to
fit whatever niche the designer thinks will evolve. Ones that retain some
national character are far easier to get involved with. I like the NAC
- it's
an interesting idea to bring the big English-speaking nations under one
roof
(no offense, Australia). I also like the ESU - China
overrunning/dominating
Siberia and most of Eurasia is interesting, and rather plausible (just check
out the PRC's attitude NOW towards Siberia) - same goes for the Romanov
Hegemony (Rump Russia?) As far as tthe ESU goes, I also think that it's fun
and interesting to play the Bad Guys - especially if we get to use
Maoist Rhetoric(TM)!
> You wrote:
> Too true. I think that while this may be seen as some (NOT me) as a
political bodies, I >like it, because it has the familiar ring of the
IMHO, it's the only realistic thing.
I mean, France has been around for a few hundred years, and it's really the
baby of the major powers listed. Germans have been around since... Arminius?
Whenever. The Chinese have a culture thousands of years old. Only Americans
could imagine a culture completely changing in a mere 200 years, and that's
just because we've only been around since 1607.
> an interesting idea to bring the big English-speaking nations under
Churchill did an alternate history involving that. South wins Civil
War, and eventually an English-speaking alliance results. Seriously, I
think US-Canadian amalgamation is probable, a US-UK odd, but imaginable
under the right circumstances.
> and interesting to play the Bad Guys - especially if we get to use
The Indomitable Will of the People shall prevail!
> NVDoyle wrote:
Cracker barrel, cheese barrel, or whiskey barrel?
> Mark A. Siefert. wrote:
> REPUBLIC: A country whose government is chosen not on a
Irrelevant, you know the definition of that one? Good. Enough of this thread
please.
TTFN
Jon
> Mark A. Siefert. wrote:
I think the barrel would be highly tempered, it seems to have so in the past
and more than likely will remain so in the future.
Bye for now,
> At 00:55 14/05/98 -0600, you wrote:
No. If politicians are involved, pork barrel.
> Mark A. Siefert. wrote:
Chris