Background of Nations

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)!

Noah V. Doyle
Political power comes from the barrel.