snakesonaplane

Unless it's changed recently, TAKA tours with NJPW. EDIT: Or are they not in the game? I believe he recently announced he was leaving New Japan at the end of his current run. True, but I think Crack Fox Penn's point is he currently wrestles for NJPW and not for AJPW, who he has not appeared for at all in AJPW and for whom he is not scheduled to appear either. Make Takeshi Rikio's gimmick Foreign Star Make Takehiro Murahama's gimmick No Gimmick Needed Make Shadow WX's gimmick Extremist. Both Rikio and Murahma are retired, so whether or not to be assigned gimmicks is debateable.

This is a lot of relationships! Some seem like person A being 'friends' with every person in their stable, is this based on social media profiles or what? Just not sure all of these would be meaningful enough to include, but then again stuff like relationships is largely a personal thing and the criteria for considering someone to have a 'friendship' with what are essentially work colleagues ('work friends?') is vague and highly subjective and therefore highly permissive. Certainly it helps when booking a lot as you can job people to their friends a bit easier than otherwise, but on the flip side it means a lot of morale hits when you fire workers. Only one thing I would question here which is the loyalty relationship between Devitt and Choshu. Loyalty is a 'friendship' equivalent of blood relationship and as far as I know it cuts both ways, meaning Choshu would considered 'loyal' to Devitt and vice versa, as in contrast to a protege relationship which is one way. Loyalty means that if NJPW fired Choshu or Devitt the other would lose the maximum amount of morale from a relationship ding. I don't follow Devitt on social media and maybe you do, which is where this idea comes from? Otherwise I'm not sure why this relationship would be considered to exist? Devitt was trained in the NJPW Dojo in LA initially, and then when to the NJPW Dojo proper, from the sources I can find says Kuniaki Kobayashi trained him, in an interview I found he mentions training under Liger and Nagata, Yamamoto was also a former head trainer at the Dojo but I'm not sure exactly when he retired from those duties before his death in 2010. Good work on all the dojo graduates btw!

Sad nobody helped me despite all the posts, but the solution was very simple. For anyone who faces similar problems with custom maps, although the options looks similar going through regular single player mode and despite the fact there's no 'mod' to enable, to get custom maps to work properly you nevertheless need to choose the map via the 'mod' menu 'single player game', then tick 'load scenario' as you would normally do with a mod. I was choosing the map and 'loading scenario' in the regular single player start menu! Rookie error. I'm sure I knew how to do this properly one before as I made a mod for Indigenous Australia at one point, but there you go super simple fix. Unfortunately I still can't get rid of the custom leader/civ/etc. name issue.

Can I get some help from the Civfanatics here please? This map: http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=364052&d=1383417257 Is like my dream map, it's centred on Africa with just the bottom of europe and some of west asia, and allows you to play all the african civs without having to play a full world map. Yay! One small thing, I don't have the net on my computer at the moment (long story), so I can't dl the map via steam. However, I can get the file in the link above. I put it in my maps folder but when I set up a game, 'load scenario' etc. and go into the game the starting locations are always whack. I've had a look at the map file in civ world builder and can't see any problems, i've even edited the map adding cities to the citystate tiles for each CS, and settler/worker/warriors to each civ starting location for each appropriate civ. However when I boot up i still get random starting locations Anyone know what i'm doing wrong or how I can fix the map? Dying to play this one. ------------------ Also sidebar, I edited the leader/civ/nation name in one of games at game creation menu, and now everytime I start a new game those custom names are there and I can't change them back, even via edit and 'accept' - it just ignores my changes and keeps the custom stuff I put in ages ago. Any ideas?

That is because being a bleeding heart liberal doesn't work in the real world. FALSE. There are no actual 'bleeding heart liberals' in politics, only neo-liberals.

Santo isn't retired yet though, only injured; albeit seriously. From what I've read on Cub's blog Santo was pretty vague about how long he would be gone for, possibly this whole year, possibly 6 months. However, he did also say he wants to team with his son when he recovers, so he does at least have an intention to wrestle again (rather than retire), and as he never actually stated he was retiring he should probably just be given a spinal injury for 10-12 months.

They do, and also a really tiny squad. I know this because I tried playing a Career Mode with them in Fifa 14 They have like 2 fit strikers, one of which is on loan from Getafe, and barely any recognised midfielders beyond their ideal starters, leaving only a couple of viable subs, also one of their handful of midfielders is also a loanee. They have had a lot of injuries especially to their midfield, which made the loaning out of Ki really hurt, but apparently they could not get him back for the remainder of the season. I read all the other gossip about Laudrup's attitude and track record etc. but regardless of that, he has a very thin squad and its been wrecked by injury, including their top scorer, Michu.

I feel like Science and culture goes hand in hand though? If you can get a science lead you can grab the culture buildings you want quicker, as well as relevant wonders... without sacrificing too much on the tech path. I'm a wonder-spammer at heart so cultural victory is my natural victory condition, as much as I love war it's way too easy to win, and they still haven't fixed the AI enough for me to stand the warmonger penalties.

So basically Chelsea want ALL the wingers? Please take old man Moses back we'll take Salah thank you I find the Mata -> ManU thing weird, wasn't it reported earlier than ManU were refusing to sell Rooney to Chelsea? But Cheslea is happy to sell to them? Could this pave the way for Rooney to leave? Not that they play the same position, but a willingness to deal.

Who are peoples' best favourite choice for culture games at the moment? And why? I'm looking for a new civ to play for a culture game as i've done Songhai like a zillion times (mud pyramids! and gold gold gold!).

Seriously that's fine, I didn't expect people to agree with me - in fact I knew people would take issue with my opinion when I stated it. I'm not taking anything personal, promise! Carrying out conversations with multiple people is just exhausting though! In conclusion, Civ needs to include every civilisation in game as a plug-in, also it is missing Neanderthals.

My post was made in a specific context relevant to a discussion I was having with Mick, and in response to his suggestion that the US had had a 'major role on the world stage for 130 years', i was disputing this assertion by pointing out that prior to 1945 US had in many ways strongly eschewed playing a 'major role on the world stage'. I later stated 'I completely understand why other people want them in the game, the US is a super power after all, and in a post 1945 world they have been hugely significant in world affairs, this alone perhaps justifies their inclusion to many people.' And then explained why I personally didn't enjoy them being in the game. Japanese culture is unique to the world and is thousands of years old, the United States has only existed for 237 years, and is a transplanted western European culture. The reason why I was disputing their inclusion or arguing against it, beyond the reasons that are simply personal preference (most of my reasoning actually), had little to do with the fact that they had pursued an insular foreign policy. Those comments were in a direct response to an idea raised by Mick, i.e. that the US had had 'major role on the world stage for 130 years.' The US has had a major role for 130 years if you're counting economic (specifically manufacturing). Not to mention that despite their insular foreign policy there is a huge influence politically on the Americas as a whole dating back to the Monroe Doctrine. I agree it might be better to just include past civilizations, but the US's inclusion isn't some travesty. There's a large part of modern history shaped by the United States. If you want to complain about a civilization in the game the best option is Siam since large parts of their "history" very well might not have happened. Obviously this is personal opinion, but i'm not counting manufacturing no, because that really has nothing to do with having a major role on the world stage in a political sense, Cuba led the world in sugar production at one point, did they have a major role on the world stage? My impression of having an impact on the world stage means having global influence and power, political clout etc, which the US did not have. I mentioned US imperialism in Latin America already as well, but I don't see how that qualifies as having a major role on the world stage for 130 years, when it was sporadic and restricted to one region. I never said including the US is a travesty, or used any adjective even remotely as hysterical as that. I also acknowledged the huge role the US has since 1945. Complain? I had no intention of having a drawn out discussion on the subject, but I did not anticipate so many people would jump in. I never said the US should be ditched, in fact I actually explained specifically why I think they are included and why other people would support this idea, i.e. their recent hegemony. Very few historians (outside of the US) would consider a the US a major power in 1899, or until WWII - because the US did not participate in the world stage in a major way until their late entry into WWII. Many historians would consider the US-Spanish war as a turning point for the US, and their first meaningful step into international waters, like hey there is this new kid on the block - but the European powers who werent in terminal decline did not fear the US, nor did the US have any influence over them or any other part of the world. The fact the US mugged the old lady Spain does not make the US a major player. As I outlined previously, beyond proxy conflict in their immediate sphere, which was sporadic not constant, nor widespread or internationally significant, the US specifically eschewed being on the 'world stage', they stayed out of the problems of the 'old world' on purpose. That was their explicit policy after WWI. Are my posts too long or something? I never said they should be removed, but rather, I don't like them being in the game, and further that modern civ leaders irk me as well. That is, i'm expressing my personal preferences for the game - not attempting to dictate the rules by which Civ games should be made. Why people are do determined to 'prove' my preferences incorrect I don't know. You think the US should be in the game? Guess what? Like I have already stated and then subsequently repeated, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT. What's more, that's fine with me, if you think they should be I get that, I understand your POV and accept your reasoning, many people agree with that. Well if by 'nobody' you mean, me - since I'm the only person being argued against in this thread - then yeah i'm not questioning the inclusion of those civs, because they are pre-modern and represent diverse cultures and periods of predmodern history. I'd like to point out that although I did raise the point about the US being effectively represented, culturally, by the english and french etc., that being accepted or not, really had nothing to do with the reason for me not liking them being in the game. My reasoning for that was because of their recent, i.e. post-1945 ascendancy, nothing more. Not their short-lived ascendancy, not the fact they are actually just english, but because the 'American' century actually starts in 1945, and that is only 68 years ago. So with that said, feel free to dissect the inclusion of other flavor civs to your hearts content, its of little relevance to my feelings about the inclusion of modern civs and civ leaders. RE: Italy, when I play civ I roleplay the different civs to represent their root cultures, so by having Rome I feel like Italy is represented, and could view the later leaders and places as sort of magically evolving alongside a 4000 year old Roman empire with Nukes. Basically, the game is a little crazy. ----- Israel? Yikes, that's another conversation entirely, though it will never happen in-game anyway.

My post was made in a specific context relevant to a discussion I was having with Mick, and in response to his suggestion that the US had had a 'major role on the world stage for 130 years', i was disputing this assertion by pointing out that prior to 1945 US had in many ways strongly eschewed playing a 'major role on the world stage'. I later stated 'I completely understand why other people want them in the game, the US is a super power after all, and in a post 1945 world they have been hugely significant in world affairs, this alone perhaps justifies their inclusion to many people.' And then explained why I personally didn't enjoy them being in the game. Japanese culture is unique to the world and is thousands of years old, the United States has only existed for 237 years, and is a transplanted western European culture. The reason why I was disputing their inclusion or arguing against it, beyond the reasons that are simply personal preference (most of my reasoning actually), had little to do with the fact that they had pursued an insular foreign policy. Those comments were in a direct response to an idea raised by Mick, i.e. that the US had had 'major role on the world stage for 130 years.'

Undoubtedly the Declaration of Independence is an important document in world history, though I don't think this necessarily qualifies as a 'world wide effect', the relationship with the French revolution is noted but tell a Frenchman they have the US to thank for liberty, equality and fraternity and they might not believe you; nor do I agree that the US has been playing a 'major role' for the 'last 130 years on the world stage', that is from 1883. Up until the 1945 the US had very little role on the 'world stage', on the contrary I think an argument could be made that US foreign policy was fairly insular for half of the past 130 years, with exception being US imperialism in Latin America, not focused on the world but domestic issues and the US' immediate sphere of influence. However from 1945 the US should definitely be considered to have had a 'major role on the world stage', but prior to 1945? 1883-1900: The US was developing its national economy behind tarrifs in the 19th century and although it became a major power in industrial terms in the 20th century, I don't think domestic industrial power is the same as playing a 'major role on the world stage', with the latter usually understood as a political designation, rather than a nations level of manufacturing. The only real US foray on to the 'world stage' prior to 1900 was to smash and grab tiny Spanish possessions in the Caribbean, an exceedingly short war with little international signifcance against a declined European power. From 1900 to 1942; when the US entered the second World War late, the only other really significant step of the US on to the 'world stage' was their late entry into World War I in 1917. Short participation in two major world wars does not to me, quality as having a 'major role on the world stage'. After WWI Woodrow Wilson (along with many others who contributed as much if not more, including writing the base document) was involved with the League of Nations but the US ultimately did not join (!), which in a sense is actually eschewing the notion of playing a 'major role on the world stage', since at that time the League was the 'world stage' for the powerful states. Between the period of 1918 and 1942, the US continued a policy of non-intervention in world affairs, whilst pursuing a program of light imperialism in Latin America. TL:DR the US only became a 'major player on the world stage' from 1942 and the post WWII environment, prior to this time the US was not involved heavily in 'world affairs', and foreign policy exceptional to this consisted of some proxy conflicts in Latin America. The part about Japan I don't really get, Japanese culture itself is thousands of years old, and is unique to the world, clearly Japanese culture should be represented. ------------ To the Civ related aspect of your post, I'm not suggesting the US be 'ditched' because of the European civs, I mentioned the European origins of the US colony as a facet of a broader argument- mainly their recent and short lived ascendancy in historical terms, the fact that the founders of colonial America, the British and French etc. are already in the game, was from my POV a further indication of the redundancy of their inclusion, their 'civ' until recently was actually 'England' and 'France'. And American civilization in a base sense was a Western European transplant, like Australia. That said, I completely understand why other people want them in the game, the US is a super power after all, and in a post 1945 world they have been hugely significant in world affairs, this alone perhaps justifies their inclusion to many people. I personally like the history aspect of playing Civ games, and so its more personal preference that I prefer to Civs be included that represent more older, persistant or unique cultures, to me its just more immersive and fun, and I dislike modern civs (and civ leaders) in the game. This kind of thing is largely unavoidable though, as a game Civ is counterfactual history set in a fantasy realm, Benji's suggestion of a 'world leader valhalla game' is totally apt - it's an unreal environment that defies logic.

The worldwide effect of the American revolution? I've already explained why I don't think it's necessary for the US to be included but another question instead, do you ever play as America? If not why? I don't. As far as I can tell not many people do, due probably to the late onset of their rather forgettable set of specialities, sadly an unavoidable facet of the late emergence of 'American civilization' generally. In conclusion, they're not fun! But alas they're here to stay.